SCS Law & Smart Parking

claxtome

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/upiw8uf8muc83kh/AABUIdv1L0tI9Dbp_MJH_Pxca?dl=0

System

Go back to SCS and ask them to clarify point #7 and ask specifically if the Landowner/Occupier in their agreement with Matalan has authorised Smart Parking to take legal action, including court, in their own name to recover any charges. Can they demonstrate that to the Court as it will be asked.

Also add that have SCS met the requirements of CPR 22.1(6)(a) and PD 22 paras 3.7 and 3.8 with regards to the contents of the claim and their letters.

The above essentially asks how truthful is the Statement of Truth.

manwyl

Thank you IamEmanresu. I shall get a reply sent shortly. Is there anything else I should add?

manwyl

I'm preparing the reply. Few things I've noticed about the photos they have provided of the signs and of the car park (not the photos of the car entering and leaving the car park) -

1) they don't have a time or date on them. They could have been taken at any time
2) the signs in the photos can't be read due to the size, distance and quality of the photos provided
3) in addition to the photos, they have provided design images of the signs (not photos). Again, no proof these were the actual signs

Some other points from the letter and accompanying material -

1) Matalan have told me they do not own the land yet SCS claim Matalan are the landowner
2) In reply to the initial appeal Smart Parking claim there were three machines accepting payments and printing tickets at the time. This has never been disputed. The actual fault reported was the keyboard wasn't working properly so an incorrect reg was entered as the driver was in a rush and thought it was a minor detail considering the payment had been made.
3) The car park isn't/wasn't just for Matalan customers. A sign in the car park captured using google street maps offers a refund for Matalan customers therefore suggesting non-Matalan customers could park there without receiving a refund.
4) payment was made and there was no loss of revenue, plus Smart Parking were informed of the circumstances very early on and admitted there was a reg number paid for at that time, very close to the actual reg number, that wasn't in the car park and Smart Parking have decided to proceed anyway they have in fact incurred any additional costs themselves rather than choosing to avoid it and cancel the PCN.

Should I mention any of the above also?

Coupon-mad

Yes, all of it if you like, but use IamEmanresu's words too.

beamerguy

Smart parking should really consider if the advice
they are given by their legal is valid.

UKPC fell into the trap

SCS Law humiliated in court

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/company-not-liable-for-drivers-personal.html

manwyl

OK, the reply has been prepared based on the advice from IamEmanresu. In addition I've asked for clear, readable, time and date stamped photos of the signs. I shall update this thread once I've received a response.

Many thanks to all

manwyl

Hi, we have received a reply from SCS -

dropbox.com/s/0xufins5sva3byp/Image%20%2812%29.jpg?dl=0

Your comments on this new letter are welcomed. Many thanks

pappa_golf

ok , who was the landowner?

The_Deep

I do not understand, they state that their client is Matalan.