Britannia Parking/SCS LBC

fineanddan

Greetings all,
I've received a letter in the post over the last week from SCS Law advising that a debt is owed to Britannia for a sum in excess of £1,000 for parking charges. I'm not sure of the exact date the letter was received as I've been away since the 26th September, however the letter is dated the 7th September and advising there is 14 days to resolve the matter. Where do I stand should further action be forth coming from this letter?

As for the parking charges themselves, all were accrued within a 2 week period where the car would park up and the occupant would help their partner close up the shop they worked in, located next to the parking space. On all occasions the time in the car park was less than 30 minutes, as arrival time was always after 5:30pm, and charging would stop at 6:00pm. Since the first letter (but after the date of the last charge) an agreement has been reached with the landlord that the car is able to be parked there free of charge, not that such thing will be happening to avoid this again.

The charges are all from the end of April, however as the cars location wasn't accurate with the DVLA, the initial letters went to an old address. The first I was aware of any contravention was the middle of May as a couple of debt collection letters arrived at my current address. As I was in the process of moving at the time, I updated my address to the new one at the start of June, and since then I hadn't received any more letters at the new address. I lack the ability to access the middle address, so after the 1st June, any letters I may have received are not to my knowledge. In short, Car at address 1, me at address 2, moving to address 3 and transferred car from address 1 to address 3 if that makes more sense.

If you've got this far, thanks, any help is appreciated. Basically, where do I stand with the letter arriving outside the 14 days (proof?).

Cheers!

soolin

Start off by having a read of this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Coupon-mad

I lack the ability to access the middle address, so after the 1st June, any letters I may have received are not to my knowledge. In short, Car at address 1, me at address 2, moving to address 3 and transferred car from address 1 to address 3 if that makes more sense.

So the SCS Law letter came to address #3?

When is it dated and is it reading as a Letter before Claim?

If so, then copy the style of the sort of letter put together last night by Daniel san which puts the solicitors on notice (they already know) that the Practice Direction has changed and the protocol requires a lot more of them since 1st October, than a stupid threatogram!

You might also want to read the series of letters used by biged670 in his current thread (no links, these threads by him and Daniel san are current).

fineanddan

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So the SCS Law letter came to address #3?

When is it dated and is it reading as a Letter before Claim?

If so, then copy the style of the sort of letter put together last night by Daniel san which puts the solicitors on notice (they already know) that the Practice Direction has changed and the protocol requires a lot more of them since 1st October, than a stupid threatogram!

You might also want to read the series of letters used by biged670 in his current thread (no links, these threads by him and Daniel san are current).

Yup, the SCS letter came to address 3, and is dated 7th September 2017. I left for holiday on the 23rd of September and nothing had arrived by then. It is written as a letter before claim ("Please note that this letter is to be considered a letter before claim for the purpose of Practice Direction on Pre-action conduct"), but since the letter was written well before the new laws, and arrived whilst still in September, would the letter Daniel San put together still be appropriate?

Thanks for the quick reply.

Coupon-mad

Yes, read both threads. Both have had letters written in September.

It's not a 'new law'.

Oh, and LoadsofChildren123 (a solicitor, so is Johnersh) has posted some suggested extra wording to play with, in Daniel san's thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5015782

HTH

fineanddan

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, read both threads. Both have had letters written in September.

It's not a 'new law'.

Oh, and LoadsofChildren123 (a solicitor, so is Johnersh) has posted some suggested extra wording to play with, in Daniel san's thread:

HTH

Looking over the letter that LoadsofChldren123 has written and ammended, it all looks pretty good as a baseline from what I can proceed with. I've had a look at what's required on a Letter before claim form, and highlighted below what they've included on theirs;
(i)The amount of debt Total outstanding and a list of the offenses with cost is on the first page

(ii)Whether interest or other charges are continuing Only costs it mentions are any that arise from court cases

(iii)where the debt arises from an oral agreement, who made the agreement, what was agreed (including, as far as possible, what words were used) and when and where it was agreed All it says it that they act for Britannia Law.

(iv)where the debt arises from a written agreement, the date of the agreement, the parties to it and the fact that a copy of the written agreement can be requested from the creditor. See above

(v)where the debt has been assigned, the details of the original debt and creditor, when it was assigned and to whom. As above, mentions no date

(vi)if regular instalments are currently being offered by or on behalf of the debtor, or are being paid, an explanation of why the offer is not acceptable and why a court claim is still being
considered. Not relevant as no money has been paid.

(vii)details of how the debt can be paid (for example, the method of and address for payment) and details of how to proceed if the debtor wishes to discuss payment options. They provide a contact number but no address other than the one on the envelope. It also says it's not suitable for Alternative Dispute Resolution

(viii)the address to which the completed Reply Form should be sent. No specific address is given, just a return address on the envelope.

If I take DanielSans letter as a baseline, mine should read something like this;

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 7th September 2017.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2). Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure to comply to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply, and when costs come to be considered.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

(i) whether interest or other charges are continuing;
(ii) where the debt arises from an oral agreement, who made the agreement, what was agreed (including, as far as possible, what words were used) and when and where it was agreed;
(iii) where the debt arises from a written agreement, the date of the agreement, the parties to it and the fact that a copy of the written agreement can be requested from the creditor;
(iv) where the debt has been assigned, the details of the original debt and creditor, when it was assigned and to whom;
(v) details of how the debt can be paid (for example, the method of and address for payment) and details of how to proceed if the debtor wishes to discuss payment options;
(vi) the address to which the completed Reply Form should be sent
(vii)enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form
(viii) enclose a Financial Statement form.

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully

I'm still unsure whether this will work, based on how early the letter was sent. Reading over the newly issued protocol, it states now that 30 days must be allowed for a response, as the original letter states 14 days (which may have been correct at the tie of sending) which one would take precedence, and does the new law make the letter null and void in this case?

Coupon-mad

which one would take precedence, and does the new law make the letter null and void in this case?

Well strictly speaking the old protocol applied to the letter but this is a firm of solicitors sending a generic letter and no evidence, to an unrepresented litigant in person, who is aware of the new protocol and has perfectly reasonably asked for more information and an assurance that proceedings will not be commenced whilst the issues are being narrowed and evidence supplied in either direction.

Either way you might get a claim in the end but the more they screw up now, the better it is for your position in defence to paint a picture of unreasonableness by the Claimant and its Solicitors.

It's all about putting up those hoops for them to fall through and crash on the floor!

Here, we always expect to win defended claims v PPCs and have only seen one (of hundreds) lost in over a year, where the poster had bespoke assistance throughout (i.e. people who didn't just grab a generic defence and think that's it!). We win and I would expect you to do the same.

Don't be unsure, don't doubt yourself, of course it's reasonable to ask a firm of solicitors to follow the new protocol they hoped you know nothing about.

fineanddan

Thanks for your help CM. I'll find a way to get the letter printed and send it off to them over the coming days. Hopefully I won't have to get further advice, just an update to say it's sorted.

Redx

fineanddan wrote: »

I'm still unsure whether this will work, based on how early the letter was sent.

Reading over the newly issued protocol, it states now that 30 days must be allowed for a response, as the original letter states 14 days (which may have been correct at the tie of sending) which one would take precedence, and does the new law make the letter null and void in this case?

and does the new protocol [STRIKE]law [/STRIKE] make the letter null and void in this case?

its still not a new law and its not retrospective either

it is what it is, stick to the advice and assume old protocols apply for an LBC

but any newly issued MCOL would probably have to conform to the new protocols for MCOL seeing as its past 01 oct 2017 now

Coupon-mad

fineanddan wrote: »

Thanks for your help CM. I'll find a way to get the letter printed and send it off to them over the coming days. Hopefully I won't have to get further advice, just an update to say it's sorted.

I doubt that will happen.