SCS Law want £600

KeithP

GreatWhite wrote: »

This latest letter says I have 30 days to respond.

That just means that if you haven't paid the money they're asking for within thirty days then you can expect a court claim.

Standard stuff.

Use that thirty days to further understand what will happen after that.

Hint: it's back to post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky/pinned thread.

GreatWhite

Okay guys, I've received the county court letters and I'm getting a bit nervous now.

I have no idea what sort of defence I can actually have.

Any advice would be most appreciated, thanks guys.

KeithP

GreatWhite wrote: »

Okay guys, I've received the county court letters and I'm getting a bit nervous now.

I have no idea what sort of defence I can actually have.

Any advice would be most appreciated, thanks guys.

So what happened in the last thirty days?
Did you follow the guidance offered on 12 February - over a month ago?

If you haven't yet read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, then now is the time to do it.

Everything you need to know is in that post.
It really is a case of reading and re-reading until you understand it.

Umkomaas

KeithP wrote: »

That just means that if you haven't paid the money they're asking for within thirty days then you can expect a court claim.

Standard stuff.

Use that thirty days to further understand what will happen after that.

Hint: it's back to post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky/pinned thread.

GreatWhite wrote: »

Okay guys, I've received the county court letters and I'm getting a bit nervous now.

I have no idea what sort of defence I can actually have.

Any advice would be most appreciated, thanks guys.

You didn't find anything via your research in the 6 weeks since KeithP gave you the above advice? Surely there must have been something you found?

GreatWhite

I've read the posts, I just couldn't find anything which could be related to my situation.

Coupon-mad

On 17th December, you were advised:

I think you need to read the NEWBIES thread post #2, all about defending in court.

On 10th February you were advised:

It's post number two in the NEWBIES thread that you need to read - the whole post.
Read it several times until you understand it.

So now you have no idea how to defend, despite reading the thread loads of times and even coming up with a defence last month, too early?

GreatWhite wrote: »

Okay guys, I've received the county court letters...I have no idea what sort of defence I can actually have.

Any advice would be most appreciated, thanks guys.

Read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, please, do the AOS like this poster found easy:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74063910#Comment_74063910

...they did it, others before them do this every week. YOU can do this too.

Your defence is not exactly the same as that one, as in your case you say that the driver ''decided to park behind their work building'' but surely you can see that parking there would be a matter for the landowner to pursue for any loss for trespass, and that any signs up are likely to be prohibitive (BANNING PARKING) not OFFERING parking as a contract?

Like in this case:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

Read the transcripts by UKPC v Masterson, PCM v Bull and PACE v Lengyel here:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

...and you will see what sort of things a Judge will consider relevant.

come back when you've read it all and stopped spinning around thinking you 'can't'.

GreatWhite

Coupon-mad wrote: »

On 17th December, you were advised:


On 10th February you were advised:


So now you have no idea how to defend, despite reading the thread loads of times and even coming up with a defence last month, too early?



Read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, please, do the AOS like this poster found easy:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74063910#Comment_74063910

...they did it, others before them do this every week. YOU can do this too.

Your defence is not exactly the same as that one, as in your case you say that the driver ''decided to park behind their work building'' but surely you can see that parking there would be a matter for the landowner to pursue for any loss for trespass, and that any signs up are likely to be prohibitive (BANNING PARKING) not OFFERING parking as a contract?

Like in this case:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

Read the transcripts by UKPC v Masterson, PCM v Bull and PACE v Lengyel here:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

...and you will see what sort of things a Judge will consider relevant.

come back when you've read it all and stopped spinning around thinking you 'can't'.

Thanks, this has been really helpful.

The one area which I'm struggling with, and I can see the judge question, is that I've received 6 separate tickets in 6 different dates.

Would the judge not question why the vehicle was parked there time and time again after the first ticket was issued?

Thanks guys.

KeithP

GreatWhite wrote: »

Would the judge not question why the vehicle was parked there time and time again after the first ticket was issued?

Why would he do that?
You will have already addressed that in your witness statement.

Coupon-mad

Yes a Judge might ask that uncomfortable question. Answer could be:

Because the signs are sparse and not near the car.

Because the driver thought they could park there for work.

Because the driver and other employees took these pieces of paper to be a scam after Googling the firm, who were clearly a predatory company recently banned by the DVLA for faking photo evidence (easy to Google to read about UKPC's reputation).

GreatWhite

Thank you guys for all your help, especially you Coupon.

I've read the threads and have pretty much come up with a defence which is pretty similar to the one you posted above.

Please advise if anything needs to be added or taken away.

Thanks.

Preliminary

1. The Particulars of this Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background

3) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with 2 named drivers permitted to use it.

4) It is admitted that on [date's] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

5) It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a 'relevant obligation'; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

6) It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

7) It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents and their visitors at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

8) The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:
(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or
(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and their visitors and/or start charging for them.

9 The Defendant parked legitimately in a visitor bay, used without penalty or charge for many years, by various residents/visitors at the site. After all these years, the resident and the Defendant shared the legitimate expectation of a continuing right of way and unfettered right to use the demised parking bays.

10) The Claimant does not require all residents at the site to hold and display parking permits, thus causing inconsistency in parking terms across the same land and causing confusion. The signage fails to inform clearly which bays require permits.

11) No variation of residents' Agreements has taken place and any such variation would be solely a matter between the landowner and the resident, in any case.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms

12) In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

12.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
12.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
12.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee's ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
12.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
12.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

13) Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

14) The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, and have been parking in that space for years and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.

14.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
14.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
14.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee's ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
14.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of existing residents, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

14.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.

14.3 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.

15) It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

16) It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

17) It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

18) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

19) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

20) The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, SCS Law, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

21) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

22) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

Date