SCS Law letter received regarding outstanding fines. Please help!

Umkomaas

I did a check on my own VRM (for dates I'm in the UK) and got a postal reply within 7 days. No scum chasing me (because I take great care to avoid their car parks, or if I have to, read their signs very carefully).

If everyone had a 'Nil Return' from the DVLA, guess what - the PPCs would be out of business (or landowners would have to be paying through the nose for their 'services' - yeah, right!).

Doodakoff

Hi all,

After a busy period with work I can finally begin drafting my response. I have sent another request to the DVLA and am awaiting their reply through the post. I have recieved a confirmation email from them that they have recieved my request but it says it may take a month to come in the post. Fingers crossed it arrives in time. I will change my reply accordingly should it not come intime for the postal deadline.

********

Dear Sirs,

Re: Britannia Parking Group Ltd

I write further to your letter dated **** received **** and note the contents provided. I also note that it took you over ** weeks to respond to my previous letter.

In relation to your threat to proceed with an application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order, and in reference to your previous letter dated ****, where there is no legal requirement to provide the identity of a driver (and Parliament no doubt considered imposing such obligations when POFA 2012 came into being) it seems unlikely that the Court will make a Norwich Pharmacal order, where to do so would be both disproportionate to the sums in dispute and would, on the face of it, subvert the will of parliament.

(This may not make sense as I am waiting for the DVLA's response in relation to how many keeper enquirers were conducted. I will change this or remove it if I do not receive an answer in time and include it in my next letter.)
Since your previous correspondence, I have contacted the DVLA in order to establish how many times keeper enquiries were conducted on my vehicle. The DVLA have informed me that your client requested this information **** times between the dates of *** and ****. You refuse to provide me with an underacted contract of agreement authorising the pursuit of old charges and it is my understanding that you have not only breached the Data Protection Act by doing so but also your obligations of a Private Parking Company.


******

And that's where I am. This is still a massive work in progress and I have abit of time for tweaking and deleting the things that either don't make sense or sections I have gotten completely wrong!

They have confirmed the signage displayed was present in the locations they provided on the map so I no longer require signs/dates of signage. Other than a request for a contact, I'm pretty much out of ideas as to what else to add on this reply!

Any comments and criticism is again greatly appreciated and I will continue to try and bulk out this letter.

Umkomaas

You refuse to provide me with an underacted contract of agreement authorising the pursuit of old charges and it is my understanding that you have not only breached the Data Protection Act by doing so but also your obligations of a Private Parking Company.

Unredacted.

But ..... I don't think there is any breach of the DPA, nor of any 'obligations' of a PPC (whatever they are?).

KeithP

Doodakoff wrote: »

They have confirmed the signage displayed was present in the locations they provided on the map so I no longer require signs/dates of signage.

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Doodakoff

Umkomaas wrote: »

Unredacted.

But ..... I don't think there is any breach of the DPA, nor of any 'obligations' of a PPC (whatever they are?).

Thank you Umkomaas. I've re read what I put and removed it.

And thank you KeithP. I have thought about what you said and re wrote my letter. I hope it makes more sense this time around!

******************

Dear Sirs,

Re: Britannia Parking Group Ltd

I write further to your letter dated **** received **** and note the contents provided. I also note that it took you over ** weeks to respond to my previous letter.

You still have not provided a copy of signs on display, with times and dates these were taken, or a dated plan of their position in the car park as they were displayed.

Your previous letter states that you previously supplied me with photographs of the signage which was present at the site when the parking charge notices were issued. You further state that your client has confirmed that the signage of the photographs provided to me were the same for each day the vehicle was issued with a parking charge notice. Simply stating that the signage was present during the period the parking charge notice relates to is not good enough.

It has taken you over a year and a half to provide me with the information I have requested thus far. The correspondence received has been confusing and intentionally misleading. I am aware that you have changed the signage at the location after the period of time the notices were issued to my vehicle. I cannot take your word that the signage was as indicated by your site map, as the time when your correspondence has thus far been dishonest.

You have provided 23 unclear images that each contain a picture of signage without any clear explanation as to where these signs were located during the period of the notices received. You have provided an unclear map of the site that does not clearly state the boundaries within the site. The site map itself contains 12 small red dots which I assume are signage of the site. Yet the 23 images you have provided of the site either contain one or more images of signage, not stating their location, not stating their correlation to the site map and not time or dated.

I therefore again request a clear time and dated map showing the boundary within the site, purportedly operated by Britannia Parking Group Ltd., as opposed to the other parking operators also operating at this location. I also request time and dated photographs of the signage which was present at the site when the parking charge notices were issued in correlation to the site map.

In relation to your threat to proceed with an application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order, and in reference to your previous letter dated ****, where there is no legal requirement to provide the identity of a driver (and Parliament no doubt considered imposing such obligations when POFA 2012 came into being) it seems unlikely that the Court will make a Norwich Pharmacal order, where to do so would be both disproportionate to the sums in dispute and would, on the face of it, subvert the will of parliament.

*******

Work in progress!

Doodakoff

Hi all,

I've been working on a reply in between work since my previous post and beginning to feel like I'm failing quite miserably. I'm struggling with what else to include without using old material written in my past replies. It feels like I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel!

Can anyone let me know if the above letter is okay if sent as is?

Also (and this may sound quite defeatist of me) the total of the fines is over £5k. If this were to go to small claims court, does anyone reckon there might be a chance I would have to pay more than that? These people constantly threaten me with this and that and insist a counter claim will be made to cover their costs.

The reason I ask is this has been looming over our heads now for over a year and a half. It's made my partner ill, put a strain on almost everything etc etc - so I have been putting in heaps of overtime to save this money. I am now considering just paying it off in order to have it all behind us and I can't risk inuring more charges should it proceed to court.

I know it sounds silly after all the work I've put in thus far - it's just niggling at the back of my mind now I have a way of ending this once and for all and finally being able to think of something else other than when the next letter will come!

Thank you all once again for your tremendous help.

Quentin

Were you to lose in court then you can expect the court fees to be added as well as claimant's allowable expenses and interest

Umkomaas

Can anyone let me know if the above letter is okay if sent as is?

Can you remind us what you are trying to achieve with it?

It states that my partner owes over £3,000 from unpaid fines,

28/04/18

Also (and this may sound quite defeatist of me) the total of the fines is over £5k.

24/07/18

How come it's risen by £2,000 in the space of 3 months?

Defended well, with (just) 8 tickets @ £100 a pop, this is never going to get to £3k, let alone £5k.

Doodakoff

Thank you Quentin for clarifying potential costs.

Hi Umkomaas,

The information I am still yet to receive from these people is a dated plan of the car park including dated photos of the signage for the period the PCN's relate to. The reason I am asking for this information is because there are 2 other car parks at this location and the one I am receiving PCN's for. The boundaries of each car park are not that clear.

One car park is separated via a raised kerb but had similar parking restrictions. The other one can actually be accessed via dropped kerb from the car park I am receiving PCN's for.

The signage at the site has since changed after the period for my PCN's relate to and I want clarification where the signs were.

In relation to how it' risen in price, I was previously receiving 2 separate letters from them with different PCN's. These included duplicated PCN's. In post #89, after requesting some clarity from them, I finally received a totality of PCN's that amount to more than 30 tickets and and to over £5,000.

The original charge of each ticket was £100, discounted to £60 if paid within 28 days. As they were not paid, they increased to £160. That's an extra £100 per ticket. They haven't actually explained the reason for the extra £100 either.

Umkomaas

The information I am still yet to receive from these people is a dated plan of the car park including dated photos of the signage for the period the PCN's relate to.

You can only go as far as you can in asking the question. If they ignore your request, should this go to court, you will build in to your case the fact you've asked for this important clarification, without success ...... then the Judge can ask them the question for you!

Understand how the cost has risen!

Just a thought - and this possible strategy will need further input from other regulars before you proceed with it - is to now name the driver which would mean the PPC having to issue 30 x new Notices to Driver to the nominated driver, which should then be appealed (30 times) using the forum template in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1, then second stage appeals (30 times) to POPLA. That will tie Britannia up for some time.

Even if every appeal to POPLA is lost, there is no compunction on the appellant to pay. To recover the money Britannia and SCS would have to commence new legal proceedings - so just back to where you are almost now (they haven't issued court proceedings yet).

But as I said, let's see what others say - others may feel that keeper protection under PoFA remains the better option.