URGENT: UKPC & SCS Law

Immy_007

how can i put up a letter on here with images? its on microsoft word at the moment

Coupon-mad

Save it in Dropbox or some other image host (NOT PHOTOBUCKET) and give us a shared link.

Immy_007

Can you access this link?

“
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulmj2gbmtrvvpz8/POPLA%20Appeal%20Process.docx?dl=0

Immy_007

For some reason my computer at work will not allow me to access dropbox

so the above images are related to the exact same car park and same firm UKPC so if i can rewiord that differently but use all them grounds plus the draft letter CM put on newbies thread for second reply

What points can i add or take out? they have provided contract so can leave that out?

Immy_007

My letter was not a 'query'. Stop patronising me and acting like you are a customer service agent. You and your ilk are a serious threat to consumers in this country. Cease and desist - this is now unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family.

It is important that you now stop contacting me pretending you are wanting to 'help' discuss an ''affordable payment arrangement'' for a debt that does not exist. How dare you demand that I complete details of my income and expenditure, for a fake charge from a notorious ex-clamper, propped up by you, a shameful robo-claim legal firm who were named and shamed in Parliament last month.

Your letter gave away my complete lack of liability in these words:

''2. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the contravention.
3. Our Client does not intend to rely on The Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA"). Instructions were provided on the PCN on how to proceed if you were not the driver at the time the contravention occurred.
As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, Our Client, in the absence of the driver's details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you the recent Court of Appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.''

Good luck with that old chestnut. What - no Elliott v Loake? Forget them both.

Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability and has been debunked in dozens of Excel/VCS cases, as you well know. I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.

This continued contact and demands for money from a person who is not liable in law, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the constant bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.

I also suffer from stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse. A chronic condition likely to last more than 12 months means I have a protected characteristic as defined within the Equality Act 2010 (the EA), and you and your client are making it worse. Harassment of a person who meets the definition of disability under the EA is specifically illegal within the statute under section 26:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I repeat - you know I am not liable in law. Outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'.

Stop writing misleading letters. Stop writing any letters. Your client has no cause of action against me and must take it up with the driver, and should have done so in a timely manner, establishing on the day who that party was, if they felt there was a parking charge due.

Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.

If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. The unwelcome and detrimental effect on my stress and anxiety have flared up as a result of your unreasonable and unwarranted demands, and I will have no hesitation in seeking the full amount of damages the Judge sees fit to award.

I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:

- on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall (mirroring the conduct of BW Legal's robo-claim modus operandi) had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts.

Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.

I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients.

yours faithfully,

Umkomaas

Immy_007 wrote: »

Can you access this link?

“
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulmj2gbmtrvvpz8/POPLA%20Appeal%20Process.docx?dl=0

But that's a POPLA appeal. You're not making an appeal to POPLA. Are they your words reflecting your parking event in that document?

I'm getting really confused with this thread.

Immy_007

Umkomaas wrote: »

But that's a POPLA appeal. You're not making an appeal to POPLA. Are they your words reflecting your parking event in that document?

I'm getting really confused with this thread.

Sorry its confusing

That is someone elses letter appeal to popla and was succesful but all i am doing is using the images on that and exact text as it relates perfectly to my scenario on the grounds i can contest alongside the draft letter

Signs are not very clear and the images prove that so i need to know what else i can add on there with the draft letter please

beamerguy

Immy_007

I admire your stance but, do you really think it will
make any difference ?

You are dealing with BPA approved morons and their
legals. Morons are morons

If it actually gets to court, make sure you have a
watertight case/defence and then get your satisfaction
from the judge when he whoops SCS and UKPC and
you can claim your costs.

I suspect that when the new members bill comes into force,
the likes of SCS will regret the day they ever went to bed
with known scammers

Umkomaas

I admire your stance but, do you really think it will
make any difference ?

Nail's head knocked on!

Immy_007

beamerguy wrote: »

Immy_007

I admire your stance but, do you really think it will
make any difference ?

You are dealing with BPA approved morons and their
legals. Morons are morons

If it actually gets to court, make sure you have a
watertight case/defence and then get your satisfaction
from the judge when he whoops SCS and UKPC and
you can claim your costs.

I suspect that when the new members bill comes into force,
the likes of SCS will regret the day they ever went to bed
with known scammers

So what do you suggest i contest on second reply?