We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
SCS Law - CP Plus Ltd LBC letter
Clearairturbulance
Posts: 14 Forumite
Hello all - I could do with a sanity check on some dubious letters I am getting please. This a big opening too - lots of reading but just the standard stuff.
Let me try and set the scene. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, we moved last year and have sketchy issues with post to old address - I have been up against cancer but still here, so my memory is also not so good - thats chemo mostly.
The issue is with hospital parking run by CP Plus Ltd. I have received a supposed LBA from SCS law. I have faithfully copied these out verbatim save for redacting all personal details but you will get the thrust of the situation. I received one LBA, to which I replied- reasonably I thought, but as you can see from their recent reply I think I upset them...
letter one
Dear Sir/madam
Re: debt owed to CP Plus Ltd.
IMPORTANT – DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER
We act for CP Plus Ltd and are instructed to recover the charges shown below incurred by you in relation to the parking of your vehicle.
Date Reference Car Reg. Location Contravention Amount
X/X/16 1111111 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
X/X/16 1111112 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
X/X/16 1111113 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
X/X/16 1111114 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
X/X/16 1111115 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
X/X/16 1111116 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
Total Outstanding £640
You have failed to pay the above charges despites several letters from our client requesting payment.
CP Plus Ltd is entitled to these sums under contract Law. When your vehicle parked at the above mentioned site(s), the driver of the vehicle agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking which was displayed on signage throughout the site(s). The driver of the vehicle breached the terms and conditions of parking on each of the above stated occasions for the reason stated. For each contravention, a parking charge notice was issued, for which the sums owed remain outstanding.
We refer you to the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67. In this case, the Supreme court found that parking charge notices do not contravene the penalty rule or Unfair terms in Consumer Contract Regulation 1999 provided they protect a legitimate interest.
Unless payment is made within the next 14 days, we are instructed to issue court proceedings to recover the same and any of our clients legal costs, without further recourse to you.
We reserve the right to refer to this letter, in particular on the question of costs, should this matter proceed to trial.
In the event that a County Court judgement is obtained against you and payment is not made, our client will consider all enforcement options, which shall result in further legal costs, including but not limited to:
• Instructing County Court Bailiffs/High Court Enforcement Officers to attend your address and remove goods to the value of the debt and costs owed.
• Applying for an attachment of earnings order, requiring your employer to deduct sums from your wage and pay them directly to our client.
If you wish to avoid the steps outlined above being taken, please contact Debt Recovery plus Ltd directly to clear your balance either by telephone on 0208 234 6775 or online at debtrecoveryplus.co.uk
Please note that this letter is to be considered a letter before claim for the purpose of the practice Direction on Pre-action conduct. Please read this practice direction in particular paragraphs 13 to 16, concerning the courts powers to impose sanctions for failing to comply with its provisions.
Please also note that we do not consider that this matter is suitable for Alternative Dispute resolution.
Yours sincerely
SCS Law
My Reply
Dear Sir or Madam
I have today received your letter dated May 2017
Firstly I have no intention of paying any money to your client and deny any debt to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.
Secondly should it be your clients intention to begin any court proceedings, you must provide a letter before claim that complies with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre Action Conduct. Your letter quite clearly does not meet those criteria on many points and cannot be considered as such.
Please note that a continued failure and/or refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the principles contained in the SRA Handbook.
I am the vehicles registered keeper and this is a matter for the driver of the car at the time of these alleged contraventions. The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act, schedule 4 to pursue me as keeper.
As the registered keeper of the vehicle I have not received a Notice to Keeper. As you can see, the law is unequivocal on this matter. A Notice to Keeper must be served where the driver has not been identified. Without this, the creditor does not have the right to recover the charge from the keeper of the vehicle.
As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the Private Parking Operator has failed to comply with the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Paragraph 4 of The Act states that
(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if— (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met
The condition specified in paragraph 6 “is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.”
Paragraph 9 states this notice to keeper must be given within a "period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given"
Your letter makes reference to "several letters" sent to me by your Client - however I am now informing you that I was not in receipt of these items of correspondence and was therefore unable to act upon them at the time. Please instruct your client to provide me with copies of all documentation and all correspondence relating to these allegations, together with proof of dates of postage for each correspondence sent by your client including the windscreen notices if indeed any were attached to the vehicle.
When these copies are supplied, please also confirm whether any intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass for each alleged contravention.
I also request Debt Recovery Plus Ltd confirm that they have a contract with the land-holder which includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court if required.
Whilst I await your clients timely response, I would also like to remind you of the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA.
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver
When I receive the documents from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and their explanations I will then be in a position to make a more detailed response to the alleged contraventions.
In the meantime, and in the absence of a letter before claim, you should place a note on your file to the effect that these charges are indeed disputed and your firm is required to cease and desist all further contact with me until your client has met the conditions stipulated.
I trust that I have made myself clear and I suggest that you take your clients further instructions.
Yours Faithfully
The response to this was
Dear Mr xxxxxxxxx
Debt owed to CP Plus Ltd.
We are instructed by our client.
The letter before action (the ‘LBA’) sent to you on xx May 2017 is fully compliant with the practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct (‘PD-PAC’). The LBA and the letters sent to you by our client in relation to the unpaid parking charge notices clearly outline our client’s position and provide sufficient information that would allow you to consider your position in response to the proposed claim.
Please find attached copies of the parking charge notices, letters sent to you previously and photographic evidence in relation to the proposed claim. For the avoidance of any doubt our client has complied with Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The proposed claim is based on breach of contract.
As you have not raised any substantive defence to our client’s claim, if the outstanding sum of £640.00 if not paid within 14 days of the date of this letter, we anticipate instruction to issue a claim to recover the same, in addition to any costs that our client incurs.
Yours sincerely
SCS Law
end
Now I am trying to formulate my reply to this which will be long and comprehensive as I received no additional evidence as I reasonably would expect and in fact was promised in the letter but just a single page letter, which I fortunately opened in front of my son who too saw only a single sheet of paper.
I have no details or evidence that my car was ever there save them telling me it was, I have quite reasonably explained that I am not in receipt of any NtO's and have asked for this level of detail together with locational evidence as this is pertinent to the signage on display (its a huge hospital with numerous car parks) - I received just more threats. I have not presented any defence at this point, as I still need information to understand the issues ( this is all part of a correctly presented LBA - in my opinion SCS Law are demonstrating a shocking level of law practice here I would appreciate your thoughts chaps....
Let me try and set the scene. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, we moved last year and have sketchy issues with post to old address - I have been up against cancer but still here, so my memory is also not so good - thats chemo mostly.
The issue is with hospital parking run by CP Plus Ltd. I have received a supposed LBA from SCS law. I have faithfully copied these out verbatim save for redacting all personal details but you will get the thrust of the situation. I received one LBA, to which I replied- reasonably I thought, but as you can see from their recent reply I think I upset them...
letter one
Dear Sir/madam
Re: debt owed to CP Plus Ltd.
IMPORTANT – DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER
We act for CP Plus Ltd and are instructed to recover the charges shown below incurred by you in relation to the parking of your vehicle.
Date Reference Car Reg. Location Contravention Amount
X/X/16 1111111 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
X/X/16 1111112 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
X/X/16 1111113 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
X/X/16 1111114 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
X/X/16 1111115 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
X/X/16 1111116 ACar reg Hospital Permit Holder £80
Car Park parking only
Total Outstanding £640
You have failed to pay the above charges despites several letters from our client requesting payment.
CP Plus Ltd is entitled to these sums under contract Law. When your vehicle parked at the above mentioned site(s), the driver of the vehicle agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking which was displayed on signage throughout the site(s). The driver of the vehicle breached the terms and conditions of parking on each of the above stated occasions for the reason stated. For each contravention, a parking charge notice was issued, for which the sums owed remain outstanding.
We refer you to the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67. In this case, the Supreme court found that parking charge notices do not contravene the penalty rule or Unfair terms in Consumer Contract Regulation 1999 provided they protect a legitimate interest.
Unless payment is made within the next 14 days, we are instructed to issue court proceedings to recover the same and any of our clients legal costs, without further recourse to you.
We reserve the right to refer to this letter, in particular on the question of costs, should this matter proceed to trial.
In the event that a County Court judgement is obtained against you and payment is not made, our client will consider all enforcement options, which shall result in further legal costs, including but not limited to:
• Instructing County Court Bailiffs/High Court Enforcement Officers to attend your address and remove goods to the value of the debt and costs owed.
• Applying for an attachment of earnings order, requiring your employer to deduct sums from your wage and pay them directly to our client.
If you wish to avoid the steps outlined above being taken, please contact Debt Recovery plus Ltd directly to clear your balance either by telephone on 0208 234 6775 or online at debtrecoveryplus.co.uk
Please note that this letter is to be considered a letter before claim for the purpose of the practice Direction on Pre-action conduct. Please read this practice direction in particular paragraphs 13 to 16, concerning the courts powers to impose sanctions for failing to comply with its provisions.
Please also note that we do not consider that this matter is suitable for Alternative Dispute resolution.
Yours sincerely
SCS Law
My Reply
Dear Sir or Madam
I have today received your letter dated May 2017
Firstly I have no intention of paying any money to your client and deny any debt to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.
Secondly should it be your clients intention to begin any court proceedings, you must provide a letter before claim that complies with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre Action Conduct. Your letter quite clearly does not meet those criteria on many points and cannot be considered as such.
Please note that a continued failure and/or refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the principles contained in the SRA Handbook.
I am the vehicles registered keeper and this is a matter for the driver of the car at the time of these alleged contraventions. The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act, schedule 4 to pursue me as keeper.
As the registered keeper of the vehicle I have not received a Notice to Keeper. As you can see, the law is unequivocal on this matter. A Notice to Keeper must be served where the driver has not been identified. Without this, the creditor does not have the right to recover the charge from the keeper of the vehicle.
As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the Private Parking Operator has failed to comply with the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Paragraph 4 of The Act states that
(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if— (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met
The condition specified in paragraph 6 “is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.”
Paragraph 9 states this notice to keeper must be given within a "period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given"
Your letter makes reference to "several letters" sent to me by your Client - however I am now informing you that I was not in receipt of these items of correspondence and was therefore unable to act upon them at the time. Please instruct your client to provide me with copies of all documentation and all correspondence relating to these allegations, together with proof of dates of postage for each correspondence sent by your client including the windscreen notices if indeed any were attached to the vehicle.
When these copies are supplied, please also confirm whether any intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass for each alleged contravention.
I also request Debt Recovery Plus Ltd confirm that they have a contract with the land-holder which includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court if required.
Whilst I await your clients timely response, I would also like to remind you of the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA.
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver
When I receive the documents from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and their explanations I will then be in a position to make a more detailed response to the alleged contraventions.
In the meantime, and in the absence of a letter before claim, you should place a note on your file to the effect that these charges are indeed disputed and your firm is required to cease and desist all further contact with me until your client has met the conditions stipulated.
I trust that I have made myself clear and I suggest that you take your clients further instructions.
Yours Faithfully
The response to this was
Dear Mr xxxxxxxxx
Debt owed to CP Plus Ltd.
We are instructed by our client.
The letter before action (the ‘LBA’) sent to you on xx May 2017 is fully compliant with the practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct (‘PD-PAC’). The LBA and the letters sent to you by our client in relation to the unpaid parking charge notices clearly outline our client’s position and provide sufficient information that would allow you to consider your position in response to the proposed claim.
Please find attached copies of the parking charge notices, letters sent to you previously and photographic evidence in relation to the proposed claim. For the avoidance of any doubt our client has complied with Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The proposed claim is based on breach of contract.
As you have not raised any substantive defence to our client’s claim, if the outstanding sum of £640.00 if not paid within 14 days of the date of this letter, we anticipate instruction to issue a claim to recover the same, in addition to any costs that our client incurs.
Yours sincerely
SCS Law
end
Now I am trying to formulate my reply to this which will be long and comprehensive as I received no additional evidence as I reasonably would expect and in fact was promised in the letter but just a single page letter, which I fortunately opened in front of my son who too saw only a single sheet of paper.
I have no details or evidence that my car was ever there save them telling me it was, I have quite reasonably explained that I am not in receipt of any NtO's and have asked for this level of detail together with locational evidence as this is pertinent to the signage on display (its a huge hospital with numerous car parks) - I received just more threats. I have not presented any defence at this point, as I still need information to understand the issues ( this is all part of a correctly presented LBA - in my opinion SCS Law are demonstrating a shocking level of law practice here I would appreciate your thoughts chaps....
0
Comments
-
In addition - if they are citing a breach of contract - surely thats a contract between the driver and CP Plus Ltd ?0
-
you have been back to the hospital and contacted the PALS section?Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
Clearairturbulance wrote: »... Now I am trying to formulate my reply to this which will be long and comprehensive ....
Why? It makes no difference what you say in your response, and they probably won't even bother reading it. If they are going to issue a claim, they will do so anyway.
People get too hung up on the nitty-gritty of compliance with CPR Practice Directions. This is small claims, where strict adherence to the rules is generally not considered of vital importance by Judges. At worst, they might get a slap on the wrist, but it's unlikely to be fatal to their case.
My advice would be not to bother corresponding further with SCS Law, and concentrate on formulating your defence arguments in the event that you actually receive court papers.
So far in 2017, CP Plus have issued 33,622 tickets, and the total number of court hearings they have attended was ..... 1. (Following on from 1 in 2015, and 0 in 2016).
So I wouldn't waste more than a millisecond worrying about this.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
@OP ^^ ^^ sage advice from a respected and highly knowledgeable regular who has significant experience of dealing with private parking tickets in the small claims court.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Thanks for the reassurance all of you. I appreciate all the input.
CAT0 -
That's also an old and waffly response to an LBC. There is no Annex A in the Practice Direction, which changed 2 years ago.
You would be best to complain to PALS as you are battling cancer and this is harassment, and in fact, these PCNs are in breach of the Government's stated policy:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hospitals-still-allowing-private-parking-firms-to-prey-on-visitors-with-penalty-fines-10047797.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-car-parking-management-htm-07-03
''Concessions, including free or reduced
charges or caps, should be available for the
following groups:
– disabled people
– frequent outpatient attenders...''
''Trusts should consider installing ‘pay on exit’ or
similar schemes so that drivers pay only for the
time that they have used. Additional charges
should only be imposed where reasonable and
should be waived when overstaying is beyond
the driver’s control - e.g. when treatment takes
longer than planned...''
''NHS trusts should publish:
– their parking policy
– their implementation of the NHS car
parking principles
– financial information relating to their car
parking
– summarised complaint information on car
parking and actions taken in response.
Contracted-out car parking
• NHS organisations are responsible for the
actions of private contractors who run car
parks on their behalf.
• NHS organisations should act against rogue
contractors in line with the relevant codes of
practice where applicable.
• Contracts should not be let on any basis that
incentivises additional charges e.g. ‘income
from parking charge notices only’.''PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi - Its tricky for me to explain all of the details without compromising my position. My specific cancer treatment is not at this hospital, and I am 'in remission', with a few less bits and pieces now which I am getting by without, so the PALS route is not available. I did ask for a copy of the tickets which I do not have and details of location but have received nothing, so I do not even know where in the hospital these allegation refer to, which means a defence relating to signage is going to be tricky.0
-
One thing I do know is that the only way i would consider parting with any money is if I were to lose in court.0
-
I did ask for a copy of the tickets which I do not have and details of location but have received nothing, so I do not even know where in the hospital these allegation refer to, which means a defence relating to signage is going to be tricky.
So tailor your LBC response in that way, writing as the registered keeper.
Take issue with this immediately:For the avoidance of any doubt our client has complied with Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
CP Plus are an operator known NEVER to use Schedule 4 wording, and in addition, very often they miss the 'day 15' (or day 56, for a windscreen PCN case) deadline to serve NTKs, as well.
So put Gladstones to strict proof of copies of all the NTKs issued and challenge them to show where the keeper liability warning in 8(2)f or 9(2)f is, plus all the other wording & detailed informational requirements, as set out in the appropriate paragraph 8 or 9, because your understanding of CP Plus is that they have never used the POFA. Say that their PCNs are known only to be non-POFA in wording, and often served too late, so you need the front and back of every single one allegedly posted to you.
And remind Gladstones of the 'overriding objective' (what with them being fine upstanding solicitors, and all...) and tell them that you do not even know where in the hospital these allegations refer to, which means you can make no judgement on the validity or otherwise of the charges. As such, you require copies of all photos taken on these dates in question, including all pictures taken of the car and all pictures taken (on each occasion) of any adjacent signage.
Remind them that, if they are going to argue 'breach of contract' with liability unlawfully aimed at a registered keeper, blaming them for the actions of a driver, they must obviously show that 'contract' (signage terms) and not a facsimile/archive example. Actual dated photos.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks Coupon- mad, I will draft up a first pass tomorrow - shall I post it for review ? The alleged solicitors are SCS Law not Gladstones although their level of attention to detail seems comparable.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards