Smart parking - am I guaranteed to lose if it went to court

Coupon-mad

Next step for me is to suggest you read all the other threads about how to reply to an SCS Law letter. There is another case about Smart Parking st the same stage from last week, easy to find merely by browsing back a dozen pages and clicking on all SCS Law thread headers.

Or by searching SCS Smart letter and changing the default to SHOW POSTS.

Encouraging everyone to use the threads already here saves us drowning and repeating ourselves and stops newbies missing out on vital info already stated just a few days ago/a few threads down.

am I guaranteed to lose if it went to court

Did you realise that as registered keeper, you are almost guaranteed to WIN?! You can't be held liable if they do not know who was driving. End of.

And Smart never sue in England/Wales - at the time of writing this - and if they did we'd be likely to help you win, as keeper, due to 'no keeper liability' since smart do not use POFA wording in their NTKs.

Dollypartoni

Thank you I have read the Lbc sticky and a few previous posts and will draft my response tonight. I’ll post it on here once I’ve done It.

I’m wondering if my letter is even a genuine letter from SCS Law or not but going to response either way.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

torontoboy45

Smart issued over 384000 tickets last year. Imagine, then, if 99% simply rolled over and paid. Imagine if the remaining 1% simply refused. Nearly 4000 people throwing themselves at the mercy of the county court. Except Smart only managed 18 cases. Just 18. Even then I'm not sure if these were held in England/Wales or how many they lost.

Just sayin'.

Dollypartoni

Can you advise on my reply before I sent it to SCS Law? I!!!8217;m a little confused if it is too generic and if I should go more into it when they reply? Also this is smart parking and they have no identitied the driver, should I mention it?
!!!8212;!!!8212;

Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.
Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol. Yet after a quick google search, it is apparent that the generic Letter before Claim sent to me is the same, word for word, that you sent to other registered keepers irrespective of the Claim at hand, so you seem to think you are immune to the requirements and are relying on fear to get people to pay up without the correct information being presented.
Your letter addressed to me contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, what time, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 8220;establishing yourself as the creditor;
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added



If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


Yours faithfully

Dollypartoni

I took out the beginning paragraph referencing the date etc. Sorry for the typos my phone decides what words to use for me!!!55357;!!!56873;

Fruitcake

Item 7. Not so Smart are BPA members not IPC.

Umkomaas

Dollypartoni wrote: »

I took out the beginning paragraph referencing the date etc. Sorry for the typos my phone decides what words to use for me!!!55357;!!!56873;

You can get rid of these by switching off your 'Smart Punctuation' on your iPhone/iPad and avoid clogging up your posts with !!!!8820 and the like as every apostrophe used converts to exclamation marks and numbers.

Go to 'General' > 'Keyboard' > 'Smart Punctuation' and flick the switch off.

Switching off seems to have no negative affect on any other use of the keyboard.

nigelbb

torontoboy45 wrote: »

Smart issued over 384000 tickets last year. Imagine, then, if 99% simply rolled over and paid. Imagine if the remaining 1% simply refused. Nearly 4000 people throwing themselves at the mercy of the county court. Except Smart only managed 18 cases. Just 18. Even then I'm not sure if these were held in England/Wales or how many they lost.

Just sayin'.

There is also no saying that any of these cases were motorists taken to court by Smart for unpaid parking invoices. I don't recall us ever seeing a court case with Smart on this forum. Smart are a big company & they could have other reasons for initiating court case e.g. against suppliers or clients.