SCS Law & Smart Parking

Umkomaas

My view is to take the bull by the horns and try to bring this to a head. Tell them to do their worst so this Chinese water torture of ongoing threat can be ended. Time for them to put up or shut up.

beamerguy

I'm on the same page as Umkomaas

Think why SCS keep offering you a deal, it's because
they are unsure

Play the game, tell them that no further correspondence
will be sent by you and that you will now rely on the
court to make a fair judgement and award costs in your
favour.

So far, this has cost SCS a lot of money, assuming that
they work on the minimum wage which probably applies
to low rent legals

As the chances are now very high that SCS will be whooped
in court again

This hand of poker they are holding must now be called
out as your hand is much stronger

manwyl

beamerguy wrote: »

I'm on the same page as Umkomaas

Think why SCS keep offering you a deal, it's because
they are unsure

Play the game, tell them that no further correspondence
will be sent by you and that you will now rely on the
court to make a fair judgement and award costs in your
favour.

So far, this has cost SCS a lot of money, assuming that
they work on the minimum wage which probably applies
to low rent legals

As the chances are now very high that SCS will be whooped
in court again

This hand of poker they are holding must now be called
out as your hand is much stronger

Yes, it does make me wonder what they're hoping to gain because their costs must exceed the £170. Are they able/likely to try to increase this in court? If not, their motivation must be something else. If they are on a revenge mission they must be getting resistance from other victims of this scam. Maybe they hope to win one in court which they can use as a precedent to pressurise others into caving therefore making this far more valuable to them. The date of my alleged event being around the same week Matalan kicked them out may put me towards the front of the queue. They're probably trying to decide who is the weakest so they can increase their chances in court with them. :mad:

beamerguy

manwyl wrote: »

Yes, it does make me wonder what they're hoping to gain because their costs must exceed the £170. Are they able/likely to try to increase this in court? If not, their motivation must be something else. If they are on a revenge mission they must be getting resistance from other victims of this scam. Maybe they hope to win one in court which they can use as a precedent to pressurise others into caving therefore making this far more valuable to them. The date of my alleged event being around the same week Matalan kicked them out may put me towards the front of the queue. They're probably trying to decide who is the weakest so they can increase their chances in court with them. :mad:

It's one of the mysteries as to why tin pot low rent legals
work for peanuts. You will never find a REAL solicitor
getting out of bed for such low amounts.

However the way they conduct their business proves
they are not professionals, far from it.
These low rent bods are simply vindictive and the SRA
should be disgusted with themselves for even allowing
them to be members of this elite club.

The £170 breaks down to a £100 ticket and £70 as
a fake addon for debt collection.
Courts are not very keem on fake addons

The average claim including costs is about £230 and
as it is a county court, what they can claim is restricted

As said, close down the conversation with them and
if they do take court action, you will have all the
experience on this forum to beat them anyway

As said, "a fool and his money is easily parted", that's
what these low renters do with their eyes wide open

Don't forget to watch BBC1 Watchdog tonight at 8pm
The Prankster will explain about ANPR

nosferatu1001

Respond back, invinting them to submit a claim based on signage that doesnt even exist at the site in question. You will move for a strike out before the claim is allocated to any track, meaning they will be liable for your full costs.

[Deleted User]

Respond back, invinting them to submit a claim based on signage that doesnt even exist at the site in question. You will move for a strike out before the claim is allocated to any track, meaning they will be liable for your full costs.

It's likely the claim will be allocated for the purposes of hearing the application, so I wouldn't make that assumption....

manwyl

I don't think I'll be responding to them anymore. They're time wasters and I've said all I need to so far. Happy to see them in court, if they dare, because I will be submitting a counter claim.

I'll let you know if I hear anything else. Thanks for all your help everyone

Umkomaas

Happy to see them in court, if they dare, because I will be submitting a counter claim.

If you feel you have a strong counterclaim against them, issue it as soon as possible as part of your AOS, then they know they can't withdraw and the routes open to them are pay the counterclaim, defend at court or face a default judgment and CCJ. Then you involve their ATA if the CCJ is not paid!

manwyl

Hi guys, we received a County Court Claim Form today. I can scan and share it on here if that's ok? So, the fun and games begin.....

Coupon-mad

We don't need to see a claim, they are all the same!

Read the NEWBIES thread, do the AOS online and show us your defence and a counterclaim if you so wish.