Shopping centre private car-park sent threatening letter invoicing for £3000

Umkomaas

Calvinm wrote: »

1. I think it does. At the bottom of the sign it says "Parking charges that are not paid within the given period may be passed to a debt recovery agent where you may incur additional costs." Do this statement technically cover the addition £40 "admin" fee from £80 to £120?

They might argue it does, but it’s so open ended that it (potentially) could be 10 grand (or any other daft amount) being added. Had there been any debt recovery agent contact with your gf before the issue of the Ntk?

If the PPC is pursuing the keeper via the Ntk, they cannot demand any more that the maximum charge shown on the car park sign = £80.

In any case, at the point of receiving the Ntk letter, this should never have been passed to debt collectors as the appeals process window for the keeper had only just opened.

Calvinm

Umkomaas wrote: »

They might argue it does, but it’s so open ended that it (potentially) could be 10 grand (or any other daft amount) being added. Had there been any debt recovery agent contact with your gf before the issue of the Ntk?

If the PPC is pursuing the keeper via the Ntk, they cannot demand any more that the maximum charge shown on the car park sign = £80.

In any case, at the point of receiving the Ntk letter, this should never have been passed to debt collectors as the appeals process window for the keeper had only just opened.

Ah I see, I just wasn't sure where regulation stood on the fairness/legitimacy of ambiguous wording like that.

No, this has been the first debt recovery letter we have received. Though I believe we have received other NtK about other parking tickets (whereas the SCS Law letter has a list of all of them), but I think the other NtK might have mistakenly been disposed of by her parents at another address for older tickets also from CPP. I think the debt recovery letter is in line with regulations because it doesn't have the most recent ticket, just the older ones unfortunately.

Edit: Some of that information is incorrect. There HAS been a previous letter sent along with the most recent NtK which is a DRP letter which are both dated 15/11/17, and then the SCS law letter was sent on 17/11/17.

Umkomaas

I think the debt recovery letter is in line with regulations because it doesn't have the most recent ticket, just the older ones unfortunately.

But the one image you have provided of the Ntk (and they state that through it they are pursuing the keeper) shows the charge being £120. It is not a debt recovery letter it’s a Ntk.

Were other NtKs like this? Rhetorical question at present if you no longer have them. But this is where the PaP can assist you - ask SCS to provide copies of each and every Notice to Keeper CPP have sent to the vehicle’s keeper. Then you’ll have the answer to the question.

Calvinm

Umkomaas wrote: »

But the one image you have provided of the Ntk (and they state that through it they are pursuing the keeper) shows the charge being £120. It is not a debt recovery letter it’s a Ntk.

Were other NtKs like this? Rhetorical question at present if you no longer have them. But this is where the PaP can assist you - ask SCS to provide copies of each and every Notice to Keeper CPP have sent to the vehicle’s keeper. Then you’ll have the answer to the question.

When I said debt recovery letter, I meant the SCS Law LBC. I think that is inline with having to wait a certain amount of time for the appeals window as the SCS Law details all of the older tickets before the most recent one, and then the most recent NtK has another ticket which is not shown on the SCS letter.

I'll definitely add that to my response to SCS though with regards to copies of the previous NtK. Apparently they were identical to the most recent one we actually have which is a ticket fine of £120.

So does this still present an issue for them as the NtK can only be for £80 even if the SCS Letter is allowed to be £120 to cover supposed 'admin costs'?

I did add a bit to my previous reply but it was a bit too late:

Edit: Some of that information is incorrect. There HAS been a previous letter sent along with the most recent NtK which is a DRP letter which are both dated 15/11/17, and then the SCS law letter was sent on 17/11/17.

Calvinm

Apologies for playing 20 questions but I need this clarifying even if it might be a silly question. I read RobinofLoxley's comment in another thread which reads,

"Are these genuine LBC's from proper solicitors? Because debt collectors like DRP are known to use the trick of using notepaper headed with the name and logo of a firm of solicitors, pretending to have been sent by the solicitors. If the letter still asks you to send payment to the debt collectors it has come from them and not the solicitors, so it can be ignored. A real LBC or LBA from real solicitors should be acted upon."

The SCS letter does have their logo on it, but it does say "If you wish to avoid the steps outlined above being taken, please contact Debt Recovery Plus Ltd directly..." (hxxps://i.imgur.com/XA15VyT.jpg). Though the letter does still say to consider it as an LBC. We have addressed our response letter to SCS Law and intend to sent to their address. Is this what we should do?

Umkomaas

Calvinm wrote: »

Apologies for playing 20 questions but I need this clarifying even if it might be a silly question. I read RobinofLoxley's comment in another thread which reads,

"Are these genuine LBC's from proper solicitors? Because debt collectors like DRP are known to use the trick of using notepaper headed with the name and logo of a firm of solicitors, pretending to have been sent by the solicitors. If the letter still asks you to send payment to the debt collectors it has come from them and not the solicitors, so it can be ignored. A real LBC or LBA from real solicitors should be acted upon."

The SCS letter does have their logo on it, but it does say "If you wish to avoid the steps outlined above being taken, please contact Debt Recovery Plus Ltd directly..." (hxxps://i.imgur.com/XA15VyT.jpg). Though the letter does still say to consider it as an LBC. We have addressed our response letter to SCS Law and intend to sent to their address. Is this what we should do?

Sorry, but you’re either not getting this, or you’re not paying sufficient attention to the information and advice already given, or you’re asking too many questions and in danger of disappearing up your own proverbial. We are not here like some online web chat-line, think of a question, post it up, get instant reply. We are not the alternative to your own research.

I’ve already covered this twice in post #18 and post #66. I don’t normally repeat advice, yet I’ve already done that, so not again.

I’ve already told you, also a couple of times, to slow down. The thread is only 2 days old and already there have been 75 posts.

I’m backing off this for now until you get clear in your mind all the issues and how you are going to deal with it - and come up with a clear plan.

System

For £3K at stake the clear plan should be see a solicitor.

There are a few on here but you really should consider carefully whether this DIY approach will be cost effective.

Calvinm

Update for anyone interested or in a similar situation: As it stands right now, we're sort of stuck in a limbo. We have filled an online appeal directly with CP Plus for the most recent parking notice and have sent a letter (which was detailed in a previous reply of mine) to SCS Law directly but haven't received a reply from either one. It has been almost 3 weeks since that has been sent so at this point which are just playing a waiting game.

Calvinm

Update 2: We have received an email response from SCS Law. It doesn't fulfil every criterion set out by our initial letter to them but does a couple so we're a bit lost. There is still a disconnect between what the PCN says and what the signage says (e.g. PCN says it is a restricted area, it is not), they still cannot prove the driver was on-duty staff, and the signage is inadequate (e.g. not readable from a car, £ fine is too small), etc.

Their refusal to provide a POPLA number through this email (and our online appeal for one of the more recent tickets was never responded to) has left us a bit lost. We are going to try to get in touch with a solicitor as soon as possible to talk through our options but I'm not sure if the Christmas period will make that possible or not.

Here's their response if anyone is interested:


Dear

---

Re: Debt owed to CP Plus Ltd

Thank you for your correspondence, this was passed to our client and we have now received their instruction.

Please find attached the letter of authorisation for our client to control parking and the site map as requested.

The terms and conditions are set out by the signage displayed throughout the site. The driver agrees to comply with these terms and conditions when they park their vehicle at the site, thus forming a contract with our client. Please note, the notices and signage are compliant with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Meadowhall's ANPR records show that the vehicle in question parked on numerous occasions in the Visitor Car Park for a length of time between 6 to 12 hours (as the site is patrolled by ANPR cameras, photographs of the vehicle are not taken to show where the vehicle was parked but rather when it entered and exited the site). This is significantly longer than the average shopper at the site. It is our client's position that the ANPR data is sufficient to show that the driver was not parked at the site as a customer, but rather for other reasons and therefore, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions.

The Letter before Claim provides details of the dates and location of the each parking charge notice. The sum of £80 is within BPA guidelines. The further costs, incurred after the parking charge notices was not paid, were detailed on the signage and therefore form part of the contract with the driver.

In summary, it is our client's position that the terms and conditions of parking are clearly displayed at the site and that the driver failed to comply with them on many occasions. The Visitor Car Parks are for customer use only and it is strictly prohibited for long stay users, either Staff or Park & Ride, to use them.

Please note that our client rejects your request for this matter to be dealt with by POPLA, as this matter has now progressed past the appeals stage.

Kind regards,

SCS Law


Attached items:

Authorisation letter: https://imgur.com/YkIWk3b
Car parking site plan: https://imgur.com/ErNsMWc

Coupon-mad

We are going to try to get in touch with a solicitor as soon as possible to talk through our options

Be careful, not all solicitors have experience of private parking issues, and might not give the best advice, despite best intentions.

Please note, the notices and signage are compliant with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

NO they are not.