SCS Law letter received regarding outstanding fines. Please help!

nosferatu1001

It WAS NOT an extra £100
It was £100 discounted to £60, but still £100
Theyve then added an ENTIRELY MADE UP £60 for "debt action" when they use a no collect, no fee provider, so of course you point out this is an illegal inflation of costs

The plan above has some legs
Theyve not yet issued proceedings, as pointed out above, meaning under POFA the keeper can entirely avoid liability by naming the driver WITH a serviceable address. If the driver lives overseas that is even better, as their is no hope of them being taken to court.

Doodakoff

Thank you Umkomaas and nosferatu1001.

I really like your idea. I've still got abit if time before my reply needs to be sent off so I'll see others thoughts and if others feel that keeper protection under PoFA remains the better option.

Thanks again.

Doodakoff

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

It WAS NOT an extra £100
It was £100 discounted to £60, but still £100
Theyve then added an ENTIRELY MADE UP £60 for "debt action" when they use a no collect, no fee provider, so of course you point out this is an illegal inflation of costs

The plan above has some legs
Theyve not yet issued proceedings, as pointed out above, meaning under POFA the keeper can entirely avoid liability by naming the driver WITH a serviceable address. If the driver lives overseas that is even better, as their is no hope of them being taken to court.

I'm in the process of writing a letter to name the driver and potentially just get this all paid off and forgotten about.

In relation to the additional £60 they've added to each PCN - if they have yet to use debt recovery is there a way of asking them to remove it from each one? Or their usage of SCS Law an inclusion of the debt service?

beamerguy

Doodakoff wrote: »

I'm in the process of writing a letter to name the driver and potentially just get this all paid off and forgotten about.

In relation to the additional £60 they've added to each PCN - if they have yet to use debt recovery is there a way of asking them to remove it from each one? Or their usage of SCS Law an inclusion of the debt service?

I am not sure you understand what has already been said.
The debt recovery fee of £60 per ticket is a FAKE charge

You surely had debt collector letters before SCS got involved ?
Who were they from ? Or, was SCS being the debt collector ?

They won't remove the £60 x 8 because its a nice little
earner ..... BUT A COURT WILL.

Doodakoff

Thank you beamerguy.

I'm going to name the driver, wait for the court date that follows and hopefully get the fake fees removed.

Umkomaas

Just wait to see whether Coupon-mad might comment on naming the driver (30 times) as being a better strategy for you. Hopefully she will be along later this evening.

Doodakoff

Thank you Umkomaas and thank you all to have helped.

I think it's time I knocked this on the head and either pay up or wait for the court proceedings to start, take it to court and see if I can at least get the additional £60 charges wavered.

This has been going on too long now and coupled with long hours at work attempting to gather the money needed, I'm left exhausted and just can't mentally think about tackling this.

I've completed a letter naming the driver, asking for payment plans etc. This needs to be sent off tomorrow so I've pretty much run out of time. My own fault for leaving it so late.

Umkomaas

Just name the driver and see what they do - no offer of payment plans at this stage as it indicates a willingness to pay, which may not be necessary (or not at the amount they are presently demanding).

Make sure when you name the driver you list each event date (30 of them) and give the driver's name against each. You should also provide the driver's address (or at least one where they can receive mail if you don't want to give the home address). If the driver's home address is the same as the one Britannia is corresponding with now, then an alternative address (nearby relative/friend?) might be best used so they don't read anything into the strategy.

Naming the driver will not cost you any extra on top of what they are currently demanding.

If you're bracing yourself to pay something, given the amount, why not let an independent arbitrator (a Judge) take a balanced view on the amount - it won't be more than they're claiming and more than likely a lot less. And you have nothing to fear from the Judge, it's not a trial, more like a business discussion around a table with you, or driver (you can attend too and speak on their behalf as a Lay Representative - but they must attend), the Britannia rep and the Judge.

Or if you really are going to pay, why not make them an offer at a much lower figure than they're asking. See how they respond (but this would be a last resort option, not first resort and not employed if any of the other options are to be followed).

Doodakoff

Thank you Umkomaas.

A quick question in relation to the driver.

If the driver were to be the registered keeper then am I correct in thinking no new PCNs will be sent. The carpark has an ANPR system which has taken images of the vehicle, including slightly out of focus images of the driver. For this reason, am I right in thinking I can't have a nominated driver (I.e someone else who may have been driving) other than the actual driver.

Quentin

The keeper will keep getting PCNs if any driver earns them by "breaching" car park contracts!

Simply naming the driver won't mean future incidents will mean the driver won't get a PCN

Why would you name someone as the driver if they weren't??