URGENT: UKPC & SCS Law

[Deleted User]

Scary perhaps. But stating the process of enforcement (whilst making clear how enforcement can be avoided) is not misleading.

They are instructed to recover £160, fine, my beef is that they state that amount is contractual and I'm not convinced it is, because most signs refer to indemnification, not routine and fixed charges. But I've not seen the sign.

beamerguy

Johnersh wrote: »

Scary perhaps. But stating the process of enforcement (whilst making clear how enforcement can be avoided) is not misleading.

It's not just scary, it is a blatant attempt to extort money

Bailiffs, attachment to earnings etc ...... before the event ??

This rubbish makes the SRA look rubbish if they cannot
control these rogues

Computersaysno

Is it still URGENT?? OR has the boat sailed?

Immy_007

now SCS has replied back..i will post the letter on here shortly

Immy_007

https://imgur.com/a/vUYUm

https://imgur.com/a/RwzZm

This is their response to the letter sent asking for the documents

They have given 30 days to reply so what do i respond back with now?

They have sent contract, site map and photos of vehicle entering and leaving

Castle

Immy_007 wrote: »

https://imgur.com/a/vUYUm

https://imgur.com/a/RwzZm

This is their response to the letter sent asking for the documents

They have given 30 days to reply so what do i respond back with now?

They have sent contract, site map and photos of vehicle entering and leaving

1) Looking at the "contract" it appears to run from 31st October 2013 for an initial period of 36 months... so there's no evidence that it was renewed in October 2016.

2)There's no mention of UKPC having the power to take people to court

3) And perhaps more importantly, the 3 hour time limit isn't listed as one of the restrictions. But the restrictions state that a valid parking permit must be displayed at all times.

Is this the same car park?

[Deleted User]

Looking at the "contract" it appears to run from 31st October 2013 for an initial period of 36 months... so there's no evidence that it was renewed in October 2016

I'd agree with that, but the fact that signs & equipment remain in place etc would allow the court to make a finding of fact that it continues to run, terminable on notice.

There's no mention of UKPC having the power to take people to court

It is hard to read, but this power is in the contract.

And perhaps more importantly, the 3 hour time limit isn't listed as one of the restrictions. But the restrictions state that a valid parking permit must be displayed at all times

This is the important one. As a matter of principle, it appears that they are seeking to enforce terms that they are not authorised to.

I would also be arguing that example signs in light of this evidential issue are not good enough. They could be from anywhere...

Is this the same car park?

Well, quite.

Castle

Johnersh wrote: »

I'd agree with that, but the fact that signs & equipment remain in place etc would allow the court to make a finding of fact that it continues to run, terminable on notice.

It is hard to read, but this power is in the contract.

Your eyesight is better than mine.

[Deleted User]

Underneath the last redaction. It's a ropey copy, but from what I can see of it, suggests it's good enough.

Castle

Johnersh wrote: »

Underneath the last redaction. It's a ropey copy, but from what I can see of it, suggests it's good enough.

Found it... thanks; also just noticed that the contract is actually signed by the Landowner's Agent!