SCS Law & Smart Parking

Coupon-mad

Try a version of Johnersh's 'cathartic' reply this time! Search for that word.

They cannot just give you 14 days and threaten 'proceedings', they have to follow the pre-action protocol.

[Deleted User]

Just a thought (to throw something else in the mix) the google images - albeit rather old - suggest this was a pay and display car park - as do all the primary signs (large font). So if you did pay and display, you can put them to proof that you did not.

What are the chances that someone with a near identical numberplate paid and passed the ticket to you. Highly remote - especially since you will also ask them now to confirm in writing how many tickets were sold to vehicles with similar registrations, but for which there is no record of them entering leaving? You should repeat that request with every letter to demonstrate the ongoing pursuit of this matter is wasteful of costs and court resources (in the event proceedings are issued).

In principle, you can plead substantial compliance with the contract (and no loss). Ticket bought, ticket displayed, had they checked manually they would have seen just one digit error etc etc. It is a failure of their system to check and marry up the record that has caused the issue.

The breach of contract (if the sign requires you to input the full and correct registration) is arguably de minimis where they have a record of an additional payment, there is no loss to them and the penalty that they seek serves no legitimate purpose. You will recall in Beavis that the penalty rule was engaged (something the parking companies often forget). On the facts of that case, but the fine was not a penalty (a) because Mr Beavis DID overstay but also (b) pour encourager les autres where the business purpose was to encourage the "churn" in the carpark and freely available parking for all, which had a value over and above the cost of parking or the overhead of enforcement. Here, the ticketing is easily checked. They have an explanation and can marry it up. Physical enforcement by a parking attendant would also confirm your position.

If your case/evidence is accepted, this may amount to a penalty because the actual penalty at £85 far outweighs the administration/checks that they would need to undertake and where there is evidence of all reasonable attempts to comply with the contract terms.

By all means tell them that their letter is threatening, but otherwise Arkell v Pressdram applies.

manwyl

"pappa golf - ok , who was the landowner?"

Not Matalan according to the store manager and a property manager I spoke with at head office. I've emailed the property manager asking to confirm this in writing and to ask who the landowner is. He's normally pretty quick with replies so I'll update on this ASAP

manwyl

"The Deep - I do not understand, they state that their client is Matalan."

Matalan Cheltenham was the site. Smart Parking are SCS's clients

manwyl

Matalan have replied with the following. Are they the landowners or not?

"I can confirm that the store and car park at Cheltenham are demised to Matalan via Leasehold ownership and therefore are our responsibility."

nosferatu1001

Theyre the landholders, as they are Lease holders

What they can and cannot do with the land will be detailed in their lease.

manwyl

OK, I will have to move on from the landowner point. I was clearly misinformed by Matalan previously. I have drafted a response but before I put it on here for review I need to ask do I need to continue to worry about being identified should SCS or Smart Parking be reading this forum? We've moved way beyond template letters and responses now and unfortunately the driver was naively identified very early on (that won't happen again!). I will remove names and addresses still. Thanks everyone

manwyl

Hello all again. Here's my draft reply to the most recent letter received from SCS. I have a few days before it needs to be sent. Please can you let me know if anything needs changing or if it's ok as it is? Big thanks to all who have helped so far and continue to offer their advice. I'd be lost without it! :T

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your letter dated xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx. I found it to be threatening. You can’t just give me 14 days and threaten 'proceedings'. You have to follow the pre-action protocol.

I refer you to the photos in your letter dated the xxx xxxxxxxx. In particular, to one of those photos (exhibit A). Within this photo are two signs. The sign to the right in the photo asks “Have you paid & displayed? Refunds for Matalan Customers” (exhibit . Therefore, it is reasonable to assume this car park is a pay and display car park. Please can your client prove I did not pay and display?

What are the chances that someone with a near identical number plate paid for a ticket and passed it to me? Highly remote. However, please can you confirm how many tickets were sold to vehicles with similar registrations to my own, but for which there is no record of them entering or leaving the car park on the day/at the time in question?

I now refer back to the photographic evidence of the signage, provided by your client. The photos, as provided, are not of sufficient quality in order to be able to read the signs in full. The “clearer copies of the signage” are templates produced using a computer and are not evidence of the signs on display at the time. Please see exhibit C for evidence of my recent visit to the moon. It too was produced using a computer. You’ll see it contains the same level of proof as the templates of the signs provided by your client. I trust you will agree this is not sufficient evidence that I have been to the moon. :rotfl:

Unless you can provide clear, readable photos of the terms and conditions on the signs IN THE CAR PARK AT THE DATE AND TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE then I can’t accept them as evidence and, I expect, neither will a court.

I plead substantial compliance with the contract (and no loss to your client). A ticket was bought and displayed in my car. Had your client checked manually they would have seen just a small error. It is a failure of your client’s system to not allow a registration number to be entered into the ticket machine if it vehicle hasn’t entered the car park and/or check and marry up the record that has caused the issue.

The alleged breach of contract is arguably “de minimis”. Where your client has a record of an additional payment, there is no loss to them and the penalty that they seek serves no legitimate purpose. You will recall in Beavis that the penalty rule was engaged based on the facts of that case, but the fine was not a penalty (a) because Mr Beavis did overstay but also (b) where the business purpose was to encourage the "churn" in the car park and freely available parking for all, which had a value over and above the cost of parking or the overhead of enforcement.
In my situation, the ticketing is easily checked. I have provided an explanation and your client can marry the ticket bought with the additional payment on their system. Physical enforcement by a parking attendant would have also confirmed my position.

If my case/evidence is accepted, this may amount to a penalty because the actual penalty at £85 far outweighs the administration/checks that your client would need to undertake and where there is evidence of all reasonable attempts to comply with the contract terms.

KeithP

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

So it is not a Letter Before Claim you are responding to.

I definitely would not be admitting to even 'a small error' in any correspondence.
Leave out the sentence starting "Had your client checked...".

Lamilad

This is not a court case (yet) - do not use words like "plead and "exhibit"