SCS Law & Smart Parking

[Deleted User]

Ha. Actually, my darling SCS chums, it's highly relevant, because they are most definitely imposing a penalty for breach of contract not a parking charge. As in Beavis, the penalty rule is engaged.

In Beavis the charge was found to be proportionate to a legitimate aim of "churning" a free parking facility. That is less clearly going to be the case where there is little or no dispute that parking was paid for and it was permitted to remain for the period you did (provided a fee was paid). I presume they've read the judgment?

They're welcome to take it to court (assuming that you too have the stamina) but Beavis may well be the decision that is relied upon to demonstrate why you should not have to pay. Contrary to the belief of some parking companies Beavis is not a panacea that makes all parking charges legitimate/appropriate. Presumably they will have advised their client of that before proceedings are issued.

I think it helps that the driver is not denied. It's a hell of a lot easier to give good witness testimony that a ticket was purchased and that they want £100+ for a de minimis error.

Also the add ons won't fly at court, but there's lots on here addressing those arguments.

My tuppence worth but obviously make your own decisions and consider differing views...

System

Ha. Actually, my darling SCS chums, it's highly relevant, because they are most definitely imposing a penalty for breach of contract not a parking charge. As in Beavis, the penalty rule is engaged.

You can also point to the IAS's opinion in this one (one in the eye for the BPA). In their annual report the IAS Chief Adjudicator said:

Of course, it is incumbent upon the motorist to take reasonable care in entering their details, and when they fail to do so properly very often a charge may be justified. However, where the mistake is so trivial that even someone applying their full attention might not realise - such as entering a '0' instead of a 'O' or a '1' instead of an 'I' - then it is, in my view, unfair to enforce a charge.

As a consequence, I released guidance to all the adjudicators that they should have regard to the
nature and extent of such mistakes in determining whether a charge is lawful. I am pleased to say
that, since issuing the guidance, there has been a visible reduction in the amount of cases where
operators pursue such parking charges and far fewer (justifiably) frustrated motorists as a result.

The issue clearly meets the definition of "de minimis" so go back to SCS and point them to the article and put SCS and their client on notice for unreasonable costs.

manwyl

Thanks guys. Here is my draft response. I've asked for more information. I've asked for this before but it has been ignored. I'm not sure I can ask it any more clearly. Please feel free to make suggestions or comments. Many thanks :T

I am in receipt of your letter dated **** ***** 2018.

A similar registration entered alongside a payment for a vehicle not in the car park is highly relevant because Smart Parking are most definitely imposing a penalty for breach of contract, not a parking charge. As in Beavis, the penalty rule is engaged.

I would like to highlight the IAS's opinion on this issue. In their annual report the IAS Chief Adjudicator said:

“Of course, it is incumbent upon the motorist to take reasonable care in entering their details, and when they fail to do so properly very often a charge may be justified. However, where the mistake is so trivial that even someone applying their full attention might not realise - such as entering a '0' instead of a 'O' or a '1' instead of an 'I' - then it is, in my view, unfair to enforce a charge.

As a consequence, I released guidance to all the adjudicators that they should have regard to the nature and extent of such mistakes in determining whether a charge is lawful. I am pleased to say that, since issuing the guidance, there has been a visible reduction in the amount of cases where operators pursue such parking charges and far fewer (justifiably) frustrated motorists as a result.”

This issue clearly meets the definition of "de minimis". I hearby put SCS and Smart Parking on notice for unreasonable costs.

I have asked for information on vehicles (with tickets bought) but were not detected by the ANPR cameras before and not received a full and proper answer.

• Was the vehicle with registration ****** in the car park at the time in question i.e. was it detected by the ANPR cameras? YES or NO

• If ****** was detected by the cameras, which other vehicle registrations, with tickets bought, were not detected by the cameras at the time in question? Compare the tickets bought with the vehicles detected around the time in question and send me ONLY the vehicle registrations that were not detected by the cameras.

Coupon-mad

I would like to highlight the IAS's opinion on this issue. SCS Law, save your breath/ink if you are about to engage your template reply finger to point out that Smart Parking are BPA members, not IPC. I know that. The BPA have actually fallen well below the level of the IAS/IPC in this regard, missed a trick that any fair Judge would not miss when shown the following annual report where the rival 'IAS' Chief Adjudicator uttered some words of reason:

Just a suggestion above to stop SCS saying 'irrelevant, Smart are not in the IPC'.

manwyl

We've had another letter today. Court it is then -

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ol16uwcquuepl6j/Image%20%2834%29.jpg?dl=0

Umkomaas

Court it is then

Highly unlikely I'd say. We've seen other Smart (threatened) court cases dropped as soon as a solid defence has been produced.

If SCS are saying this is their formal LBC, then you need to utilise the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 response to a LBC and ask for every bit of information to which you are entitled to, facilitated by the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PaP). Give them a whole list of your entitlement. Show them that you are not low-hanging fruit, ripe for the picking!

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

[Deleted User]

Have they disclosed ALL the documents you have asked for in accordance with 5.1 and 5.2 of the protocol?

Come back if and when in receipt of a claim.

Coupon-mad

manwyl wrote: »

We've had another letter today. Court it is then -

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ol16uwcquuepl6j/Image%20%2834%29.jpg?dl=0

No it isn't.

Unlikely from Smart Parking, and anyway, we win some 99% of cases here - and yours has legs.

Did you see SCS Law stuffed by Henry Hippo on pepipoo today?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=114450

Different parking firm and not the same circumstances as yours, but he included a £500 counter claim and got it, and his costs on top!

And we hope HH will use part of his 'winnings' to buy the transcript of his case decision, to help other cases as it covers:

- residential car parks/leases
- a DPA claim that succeeded for £500
- the Judge's comments about SCS Law's very nasty Letter before Claim threatening an attachment of earnings order and bailiffs.

All very useful for other people to use, if he gets the transcript.

I think his one was claim C0GF19AQ/2 at Reading Court, which heard half a dozen PPC cases today.

manwyl

No, they've not answered everything I've asked for. Should I respond to the 2nd to last SCS letter first to see if they will finally answer my question about ticket bought and registration entered on ticket not detected by their cameras?

LBC - this apparently came as part of their first SCS letter and has already been responded to as being inadequate.

Coupon-mad

Respond to both at once, and tell them you are aware that their woeful and threatening pre-action letters were specifically criticised on 16th March at Reading Court, in the case C0GF19AQ/2 that they lost with a £500 counter-claim by the successful Defendant.

Tell them you are minded to do the same, a £500 counter-claim, should they proceed.