SCS Law letter received regarding outstanding fines. Please help!

Doodakoff

I must echo KeithP - Excellent improvements Coupon-Mad, thank you so much. Thank you for your time and effort! I'm going to read up on the Parliamentary debate as it sounds interesting!
Thank you also KeithP for the DPA suggestion, I've included it in my amendments.

I have attempted to improve the wording of the DPA with the inclusion of KeithP's wording and have also included some wording around Principle 4 of the DPA. I hope I'm on the right track and have worded it correctly.

I've also taken out all of the word 'fines' and changed them to ' alleged charges'

Amended letter is below.

Dear Sirs,

Re: Britannia Parking Group Ltd

I write further to your letter dated **** received ****. I note that it has taken you over 5 months to respond to my previous letter.

The contents of your letter are noted, along with your previous claim that you have undertaken extensive investigations regarding this matter. Given that the objectionable and aggressive correspondence comes from a notorious 'robo-claim' firm of solicitors like SCS, it is clear to me that this is a disingenuous attempt at paying lip service to the Pre-Action Protocol. You have literally thrown together a pile of documents, leaving me even more confused. No doubt that was your intention, along with an aim to intimidate consumers into believing they are liable for 'fines' and 'debts' that are utterly without merit.

It will not have escaped your attention that firms like SCS were singled out in the Parliamentary debate on Friday about the despicable private parking 'industry'. MP Stephen Doughty spoke compellingly and with vitriol about the firms that solicitors like SCS are propping up and giving a veil of legitimacy:

''I also want to highlight the firms of solicitors that work with those companies. We might refer to such firms as 'roboclaims' firms, and they often have a close and cosy relationship with the parking companies.

Fundamentally, this comes down to common sense, justice and reasonableness. When things end up in court, it is an absurd situation. Roboclaims companies, which are making a massive mint off this industry, can issue a summons for just £30, and yet a defendant can sometimes have to pay as much as eight times that to defend the case, as well as having to deal with the time, emotion and everything that comes with that process.

I wholeheartedly support the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and very much hope it gets Royal Assent. We need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country.''


An absolute disgrace that not a single MP in the House defended in any way at all. I fully intend to bring your conduct, your client's conduct and the will of Parliament to end this sort of harassment, to the attention of the Judge, should your client proceed.

Your most recent letter states that it includes the totality of parking charge notices, with dates supplied for each one. In previous letters received, you have claimed that I am liable for alleged 'charges' to your client for the following dates.
****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****, ****

I note that these alleged !!!8216;charges!!!8217; are no longer included on the totality, and have in fact, completely vanished. I request the reason as to why, considering you have pursued this so vigorously and that previous letters have harassed me to such an extent that I have been left in a highly distressed state. Should you fail to reply on this point, I will make the reasonable assumption that these baseless charges have been cancelled.

I also note that you have provided no explanation whatsoever in relation to the previous duplicated !!!8216;charges!!!8217; that you claim I owe to your client. I note that these too have simply vanished, again, without explanation and leaving me more confused.

I also still require, as per my previous request and as per paragraph 3.1 of the Pre-Action Protocol:

iii. A copy of any document your client asserts sets out the terms of the alleged contract between it and a driver (this may be the same as iv below);

iv. You have still not provided a copy of signs on display, with times and dates these were taken, or a dated plan of there position in the car park as they were displayed. Your letter dated **** stated they these were included, however, they were not. I therefore still require a copy of the signs on display and a dated plan of where in the car park they were displayed on those dates;

v. You have still not provided a map of boundaries within the site. Again, you stated in your previous letter that this was included, however it was not. I therefore require a 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.

As before, these are core documents, central to your client's claim. As such, they are documents which are required to have been produced at an early stage (regardless of whether or not I asked for them) in this pre-action phase, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction: Pre-Action Conduct and the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, in particular paragraph 3. I am still requesting these documents because I clearly require them in order to be able to prepare a proper defence to any Claim and/or a meaningful POPLA appeal, as is my entitlement. The Civil Procedure Rules clearly anticipate an early exchange of information, as per paragraph 3 of the Pre-Action Protocol and as per paragraph 3 and 6 of the Practice Direction: Pre-Action Conduct, Rule 16 and Practice Direction 16.

Any failure to produce the information I have asked for will be nothing other than a deliberate attempt to frustrate my ability to defend the claim and a failure to comply with pre-action obligations.

I also wish to request, once again, that the tickets I have requested not be randomly thrown together, in no order, within a package. I have yet again had to waste hours of my time going through the documents you have provided which have been placed completely out of order. You are also still providing me the same tickets over and over. I currently have 4x copies of tickets that I have not requested. Please stop sending me duplicates of tickets, making the parcel I receive from you incredibly oversized and full of replicated and already received documents.

Due to the fact that there are still documents missing, others completely vanished and again the duplication of tickets, I can only assume that the reason for this was for scare tactics and to ensure hours were lost on my part organising said documents and identifying what is missing. I would also like add that this misleading correspondence, the omission of others and lack of explanations is still adding significant distress, both to myself, and my family.

I also to note your complete disregard for my request of nominated address for service. In my previous letter, I clearly stated that I wish to nominate a different address to which all further correspondence should be sent. You chose to ignore this request. I can only assume this was in the hope I would not receive your letter and missed your allocated time slot for a reply.

I further state that my nominated address for service is:

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

to which all further correspondence must be sent. It is a failure of your obligations under the Data Protection Act not to ensure that correct and up to date records are maintained. Failure to continue to do so breaches the Data Protection Act Principles, specifically Principle 4, and by continuing to do so, does not allow the fair and proper process and storage of correct data.
Should this request be further ignored, I put you on notice that an ICO complaint will be pursued.

You should also note that I have sent a copy of this letter to my MP and intend to appraise him of your harassment and distress you are causing.

I expect a substantive response with the documents and POPLA code (or confirmation of cancellation of all PCNs) within 14 days of this letter.

Yours faithfully


Thank you all again, amazing help!

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

You are fighting this at a time when some Judges and plenty of MPs have sussed the scam industry.

Doodakoff

Thank you Coupon-mad, I'll print it and sent it tomorrow.

I've posted the first couple of pages of the form they included. Do I need to complete this also?




It doesn't look like any official documentation, it just looks like a hodge podge poorly photocopied document they've decided to throw in with their reply.

KeithP

They are obliged to send those two forms with a Letter of Claim these days.

See here:

pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

There is no need to use either form.

Doodakoff

Thank you, I'll print off my reply and just send that.

Potatini

Dear Doodakoff, I've received that same letter too - word to word!
I think it's a standard, automated template, at this point. :mad:
The differences between our cases are that:
- I received mine as a first LBC, only preceded by threatening letter, which I have decided (maybe mistakenly) to ignore.
- The parking in cause was located within a defined hospital staff car park, for which the car has a paid parking permission AND paid scratchcards to comply.
I'm sending a letter to defend myself being the non-liable keeper, for now.
I'll open a thread when I receive a reply, as I'll probably need advice!
Best of luck with you peril.
And thanks to all you experts, you're such a great support!

Umkomaas

Potatini wrote: »

Dear Doodakoff, I've received that same letter too - word to word!
I think it's a standard, automated template, at this point. :mad:
The differences between our cases are that:
- I received mine as a first LBC, only preceded by threatening letter, which I have decided (maybe mistakenly) to ignore.
- The parking in cause was located within a defined hospital staff car park, for which the car has a paid parking permission AND paid scratchcards to comply.
I'm sending a letter to defend myself being the non-liable keeper, for now.
I'll open a thread when I receive a reply, as I'll probably need advice!
Best of luck with you peril.
And thanks to all you experts, you're such a great support!

Before you send anything off, please URGENTLY read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 which provides you with the information on how to deal PROPERLY with a LBC ... and all the steps that follow right up to any court hearing.

Please do start your own thread for any further guidance - no further input to this thread please or things will become confused. Thanks.

Doodakoff

Hello again,

We received another response and this time, they actually replied within 30 days!

They have finally supplied me with clarification around the totality of PCN's, photo's of the signs at the location and a map of boundaries to the car park. They even sent this my nominated address so they have now begun to read my letters!

I've attached photo's of the letters below for reference.




I'm not sure how I can keep this letter tennis up further so I've been reading how to structure my defence and the letter to my local MP.

Is there anything anyone can suggest to include in a reply or should I wait for their next move following the 30 days they have given me to respond?

Thanks again all

nosferatu1001

Well no, you cant jsut not respond.

Thats possibly unreasonable

So, having gone through all the documents they atached, have you concluded anything? Is the contract meaningful? In date? Signed? REdacted so much you cant tell anything?

Doodakoff

Thank you for your reply nosferatu1001. I shall begin drafting my reply, even if to acknowledge receipt of the documents that have provided me.

They have confirmed which PCN's they believe I owe.

They have included photo's of the signage of the site, although the photos are not dated. I know that the signage has since changed and the photos they have provided are of older signs. This may be worth mentioning in my reply. The map of the boundaries is also not dated.

In relation to the redacted agreement: The redactments made by them are in black. I have redacted the location - only because I'm not sure if to include it or not.


I believe it is meaningful. It is signed (on the last page) and dated, stating the period the contract covers is from 21st December 2016 and onwards. It also states the times for the enforcement of the terms and conditions of the signage.

They appear to have redacted names and addresses only.