LBC from SCS solicitors - help

Keeboard

After much reading I feel I am starting to finally understand the !!!8220;legal!!!8221; side of all this PPC, However i feel as if I need some guidance since every case is different.

So on the 5th of December 2017 I received a LBC from SCS solicitors after various letters from debt collectors that were left ignored. Naturally, I panicked thinking I will have to go court and this will be bad for my credit rating. After reading many threads on LBC, I found one thread that had the exact same situation as me (unfortunate i cant post links since I!!!8217;m a new user, so please check my posts from my profile, the thread was started by BRS7)

...I followed the template as mentioned in the thread above and sent an appeal disputing the claim as the LBC did not contain all required documentation as required from the Pre-Action Protocols for Claims Debt. I received a letter back from LBC on the 20th Feb 2018 (within the 30day reply period) with documentation including images of the incident (including date, time when picture was taken), the contract between the creditor and the landowner, map of the university (where I parked) although it was very blurry to see anything, and copies of the NTK sent, both the initial NTK and the Final Reminders.

They claim that I did not have a !!!8220;valid parking permit displayed!!!8221; on the 4 different occasions in 2016. I did not appeal to POPLA when the first NTK!!!8217;s were sent as I was not aware of the procedures and was told by friends to just ignore all letters. Unfortunately, they are right that I did not have a valid parking permit displayed and can be clearly seen from the images taken by the parking ticket officer.

In order to continue my communication with SCS for the second letter, the only defence I could find was in the POFA 2012 paragraph 4 (5) :

!!!8220;(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).!!!8221;

...since they added £60 of debt collector money on top of the £100 initially stated on the NTK, i am going to tell SCS that I will only pay £100 per parking charge as described on the NTK. The total payment from 4 incidents comes to £640. I!!!8217;m a recent graduate and cant afford that much!

IS it still too late to ask for a POPLA since I have not mentioned I am the driver and they are pursing me as the registered keeper?

Is there any other points I can use to defend my claim and carry on and long out the communication process?

Any help will be much appreciated. Please let me know if you require any more information I may have failed to mention.

Keeboard

Coupon-mad

parking ticket officer.

He wasn't an ''officer'' of any description so don't give them that respect.

You haven't said which PPC. You should read Henry Hippo's case result from pepipoo forum yesterday, where he won and claimed £500 damages from UKPC, who used SCS:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=114450

His case also touches upon the issue of the way PPCs attempt 'double recovery' by adding sums that were never incurred, pretending they are 'debt collector' or admin costs. Not recoverable but you have to argue against them and everything else, in defence.

Oh, and the Judge was unimpressed by the threatening words in the LBCCC from SCS. Nasty.

Also read the NEWBIES thread post #2 which tells you how to respond pre-court, and then how to acknowledge & defend the court claim (have you got that? YOU WILL). We do see almost everyone win their cases here, 99% win rate in 2017 with just TWO reported lost.

People who lose get no CCJ, usually are NOT held liable for the £60 add-ons and simply have top pay what the Judge says, within 30 days (less than is being demanded now).

So it's a no-brainer to be brave and fight this claim. Read the NEWBIES thread post #2.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged 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 nearly always lose, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

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.

Keeboard

The PPC was a windscreen ticket, all of them.

Thing is, the registered keeper is my father but I was driving. Having it parked at a university campus, I don!!!8217;t know if my situation is the same as Henry Hippo since they are talking about a residential parking. SCS is representing UKPC (who are BPA members), and if they did acquire these details, they need a POPLA code to prove that they applied to get access to our details?

Further reading from the NEWBIES thread, you mentioned that they cannot !!!8220;sell!!!8221; my details (or my fathers - the registered keeper) to their parties, does that include DPR, because I was issued DRP letters which were left ignored?

Exactly how do i fight this claim, the contract between the landowner and UKPC give authority for them to issue parking tickets for !!!8216;not displaying a valid parking permit!!!8217;. I do NOT have a parking permit or applied for one, so am i not in the wrong here?

I can fight the claim arguing NOT paying the £60 add-ons, but isn!!!8217;t going to court a long process and more stress, being part of a !!!8220;worrying!!!8221; family, is it worth my case? Do i have a case here to even fight?

Please reply ASAP if you can, since today is the 18th and I have to response on the 20th since that is the last of my 30 day response period. I understand that according to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, they have to assume the defendant/claimant has posted ON the last of the 30 day period.

Once again, thank you very much for all your advice, you are doing an incredible job !

Keeboard

Coupon-mad

Thing is, the registered keeper is my father but I was driving

So Dad replies, and Dad defends, not you.

Unless he names you, or already has? THIS IS HIS LAST CHANCE TO TRANSFER LIABILITY TO YOU.

Having it parked at a university campus, I don't know if my situation is the same as Henry Hippo since they are talking about a residential parking. SCS is representing UKPC

It's not quite the same, but I showed you that thread so you could see how disgusted the Judge was with the SCS threats. They are horribly misleading, and worth drawing to a Judge's attention.

UKPC (who are BPA members), and if they did acquire these details, they need a POPLA code to prove that they applied to get access to our details?

No, completely different thing. You need to re-read what a POPLA code is and what 'getting data from the DVLA under the KADOE' involves. Of course UKPC got your Dad's details from the DVLA, otherwise they couldn't have written to him!

Not a big thing for you to worry about. They will have got his data OK.

Further reading from the NEWBIES thread, you mentioned that they cannot 'sell' my details (or my fathers - the registered keeper) to their parties, does that include DPR, because I was issued DRP letters which were left ignored?

No. They are not selling it in that case. They can share Dad's data with debt collections firms and SCS.

Exactly how do i fight this claim, the contract between the landowner and UKPC give authority for them to issue parking tickets for 'not displaying a valid parking permit'. I do NOT have a parking permit or applied for one, so am i not in the wrong here?

You don't and CAN'T fight this claim unless Dad names you as driver, giving your home address - he MUST give the address too if you as a family choose that you are going to defend this and not him. Who is the most robust against authority figures out of the two of you? Who is the better researcher?

MUST BE DONE PRE-CLAIM, IF YOU AGREE IT'S YOU WHO WILL FIGHT THIS, NOT HIM.

I can fight the claim arguing NOT paying the £60 add-ons

Yes, that as well as putting them to strict proof of all their assertions and photo evidence. It saves you a massive whack of a multi-ticket case, and is the ONLY way to reduce the sum, because offering them a lesser figure will NOT work. Court is the only way to fight and either win, or reduce the demand to remove the £60 made up add-ons. YOU MIGHT EVEN WIN THE ENTIRE CASE, MOST DO.

No risk, no CCJ, yes I am sure it is scary and stressful but people here win all the time and this industry is well worth fighting.

If your local court is Manchester, Reading or Skipton, you are laughing, as the Judges understand the PPC scam and lean over backwards to hear defendants.

Keeboard

My dad hasn!!!8217;t transferred liability and wishes to !!!8220;fight!!!8221; as the registered keeper.

If this goes to court, is it necessary to say who was driving even if my dad is representing as the registered keeper in court?

If dad does fight in court, I!!!8217;m still finding it hard to understand what argument do we have against the claimant? Yes, the wording may be a bit harsh and the judge might take that into account, but I still think they have clear evidence that there was no valid permit displayed. At this point, won!!!8217;t it be required to describe the events that occurered, hence naming the driver? Because we didn!!!8217;t disclose driver before, will that make a difference for the case?

This was in London. Any idea what the judges are like here?

My plan is to send a letter back, agreeing they have enough evidence to suggest we were at fault (not the exact wording that will be used) and will try to negotiate by quoting POFA 2012 SChedule 4 (5), that states that the total sum the claimant can obtain is the initial offer stated on the first NTK, per charge. So a total of £400 misusing the additional £60 per charge.

Coupon-mad

This was in London. Any idea what the judges are like here?

Some seem to be OK, I had this said to me about Judges at Clerkenwell if that's near you?

Judges now looking closely at the process and whether there were opportunities to sort these prior to court. DJ Roffey in particular, is keen parties using the earlier appeal systems and doesn't like ignorers.

When you said 'you' had sent a reply to the LBC, do you mean your Dad did this in his name:

I followed the template as mentioned in the thread above and sent an appeal disputing the claim as the LBC did not contain all required documentation as required from the Pre-Action Protocols for Claims Debt. I received a letter back from LBC on the 20th Feb 2018 (within the 30day reply period) with documentation including images of the incident (including date, time when picture was taken), the contract between the creditor and the landowner, map of the university (where I parked) although it was very blurry to see anything, and copies of the NTK sent, both the initial NTK and the Final Reminders.

If this goes to court, is it necessary to say who was driving even if my dad is representing as the registered keeper in court?

No, the driver does not need to be named, not relevant if the keeper is defending, except he should state that he was not the driver. Dad defends it as keeper and can put them to strict proof of ALL evidence, photos, and Notice to Keeper letters, without which he can't be held liable as keeper.

My plan is to send a letter back, agreeing they have enough evidence to suggest we were at fault (not the exact wording that will be used) and will try to negotiate by quoting POFA 2012 SChedule 4 (5), that states that the total sum the claimant can obtain is the initial offer stated on the first NTK, per charge. So a total of £400 misusing the additional £60 per charge.

A good idea to engage and your Dad can make a WP offer - do you know what that is? But NOT admitting that they have enough evidence of fault/contravention. Have you seen all their photos of each and every occasion, with a clear legible sign in the same images, or photos taken within a minute that suggest the car was near a sign every time, with no permit?

With the sign being readable so the £100 is legible in the photos? Are you sure?

Keeboard

Have never heard of Clerkenwell before. I googled it, its near but more central london area.

Sorry by !!!8216;you!!!8217; I did mean by Dad.

NOt heard of WP offer, what is that? And how do i go ahead with that? Ok so in the next letter, Dad will not admit that they enough evidence of fault or contravention.

In terms of photo evidence, in order of date, from earliest to latest:

PPC 1: First picture taken at 13:49:06 and last image taken at 13:50:12. There are 8 photos in total. Photo of the car with number plate (parking ticket cannot be seen as photo is cut off) showing the sign 4-5 parking bays away. 2 images of the sign taken, both very blurry and only legible writing is !!!8220;NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING. TERMS OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMES!!!8221;. Rest is too small and blurry to be seen.

PPC 2: 1st image taken at 15:46:33 and last one at 15:48:07. There are 6 images in total. One photo showing back of car with number plate (again no ticket seen as car is cut off at image) with the sign shown 5-6 parking bays away. NO PICTURES OF SIGNAGE TAKEN AT THE TIME.

PPC 3: 1st image taken at 15:15:26 and last one at 15:17:00. There are 7 images in total. Same as PPC 2, however the seventh image showing blurry image of the signage, legible as described on PPC 1.

PPC 4: 1st image taken on 12:22:58 and last one at 1:24:41. Exactly same as PPC 3, with blurry image of signage that is only legible as described on PPC 1.

They have sent 4 separate images of the signages, first one which was taken in 2012 that is legible. 2 more that look like the digital version of the signage; one of those signages that look !!!8216;similar!!!8217; to the blurry image they took of the signage as mentioned above (being digital copy, these do say £100 parking charge), and the last image a picture of the signage with different terms of parking but also clear. However, none of these images of the signage are at the time of the contravention as such, but clearer copies of the blurry ones it seems like.

Coupon-mad

NOt heard of WP offer, what is that? And how do i go ahead with that? Ok so in the next letter, Dad will not admit that they enough evidence of fault or contravention.

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003575929-Part-36-Offer-to-settle

The BMPA website is a brilliant free resource, all about parking cases, defences, the lot.

All that you have said here (below with relevant dodgy evidence in bold) gives your Dad a solid grounding of defence that is worth the fight IMHO.

He wasn't driving, so he can truthfully say that the photo evidence does not show the terms on the signs (that HE has not seen) and it can't be assumed that the driver would have read & agreed to a penalty that was not legible. The burden of evidence rests with the Claimant.

Moreover, the fact they have taken several photos in the space of just ONE or TWO minutes only, appears to be predatory, allows no period of grace and gives your dad the chance to call for the Claimant to discharge their burden (not his) to evidence that the driver was not either:

- reading or seeking out signage terms within a reasonable ten minute 'grace period', or
- fetching a permit from an adjacent building within the grace period after arrival, or
- in fact considered 'authorised' since the only large lettering that is readable just says 'no unauthorised parking' and does not define that, nor show any legible 'parking charge' at all, according to the blurry evidence.

A 2012 photo being included appears to be completely frivolous and misleading, and cannot be taken to be the same as the terms that applied years later, given that parking law and regulations had changed in the meantime (i.e. the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 about 'keeper liability' was enacted at the end of 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice was updated several times in the intervening years, especially regarding the rules on clear signage and the sections about the mandatory grace periods).

In terms of photo evidence, in order of date, from earliest to latest:

PPC 1: First picture taken at 13:49:06 and last image taken at 13:50:12. There are 8 photos in total. Photo of the car with number plate (parking ticket cannot be seen as photo is cut off) showing the sign 4-5 parking bays away. 2 images of the sign taken, both very blurry and only legible writing is 'NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING. TERMS OF PARKING APPLY AT ALL TIMES'. Rest is too small and blurry to be seen.

PPC 2: 1st image taken at 15:46:33 and last one at 15:48:07. There are 6 images in total. One photo showing back of car with number plate (again no ticket seen as car is cut off at image) with the sign shown 5-6 parking bays away. NO PICTURES OF SIGNAGE TAKEN AT THE TIME.

PPC 3: 1st image taken at 15:15:26 and last one at 15:17:00. There are 7 images in total. Same as PPC 2, however the seventh image showing blurry image of the signage, legible as described on PPC 1.

PPC 4: 1st image taken on 12:22:58 and last one at 1:24:41. Exactly same as PPC 3, with blurry image of signage that is only legible as described on PPC 1.

They have sent 4 separate images of the signages, first one which was taken in 2012 that is legible. 2 more that look like the digital version of the signage; one of those signages that look 'similar' to the blurry image they took of the signage as mentioned above (being digital copy, these do say £100 parking charge), and the last image a picture of the signage with different terms of parking but also clear.

However, none of these images of the signage are at the time of the contravention as such, but clearer copies of the blurry ones it seems like.

Coupon-mad

Oh, and read the recent court decision recorded by DJ Iyer in Pace v Lengyel, which was about a case where the driver did not and could not have had a permit:

Click on the one called PACE v LENGYEL

Summarised here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/pace-given-pasting-in-manchester.html

1) PACE did not have authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with driver. It did have the authority to issue tickets, but this would be on behalf of the landowner, so only the landowner could sue.

2) The signage failed the fairness tests established in ParkingEye v Beavis and because of the imprecise wording and failure to adhere to the...code of practice, no contract was entered into by the driver.

3) As parking required a permit, and as the driver did not and could not have a permit, the contract in any case failed by the doctrine of impossibility. As many other judges have found with this type of signage, this would mean no contract could be in place and the driver would be a trespasser. As the claim did not argue trespass, it was therefore bound to fail.

Just to show you that not having a permit does not mean a Defendant is doomed!

Umkomaas

@OP

Please switch off your 'Smart Punctuation' on your iPhone/iPad to avoid clogging up your posts with !!!!8820 and the like. Your posts are difficult to read 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.