LBC from SCS solicitors - help

Umkomaas

You said, "your exit strategy is that if you lost your CCJ is the bare minimum and pay it IN FULL".....how would i lose our CCJ? or is that a typo on lost which was meant to be lose.

Put a comma after 'lost' and it should read better. ('Lost' as in 'lost your case in court').

Redx

so far SCS havent incurred any court fees !!


I told you that the court fees add up to about £75 so you would object to any additions no matter what they are


and the fact that the vehicle was stolen since is irrelevant as it wasnt stolen on the days in question


here is one similar thread about uni that has gone to the next stage


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5844884/claim-form-from-county-court-business-centre


post #70 now edited to make it like when umkomaas read it

Keeboard

Thanks for your reply Redx.

How do you find out if they have or haven't incurred any court fees? So they've been winning their cases basically...or they settle outside of court?

So 4 charges + £60 'debt recovery' + (if i get MCOL) £75 = £775 minimum if i lose.

And if i pay IN FULL within 30 days then no CCJ if i understand correctly.

Read the thread you posted, looks like everyones getting tough talks.

Coupon-mad

Exact same case details here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5844884/claim-form-from-county-court-business-centre

Please pm each other to save us having to type the same advice twice. Maybe it's the same Uni!

Facts are, we had no permit. So cannot argue that.

Read PACE v Lengyel, as hosted by the Parking Prankster in his Case Law pages. No permit means in some cases (depends on the sign) there was no licence to park offered or capable of acceptance by a non-permit holder. The driver was a trespasser, but PPCs cannot pursue trespass.

So 4 charges + £60 'debt recovery' + (if i get MCOL) £75 = £775 minimum if i lose.

No because there are no true debt collection costs, at all. So you can avoid those.

4 charges is £400, plus court fees, if lost. Told you that in the second post:

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.

There is ALWAYS some sort of defence v a PPC. Some not as strong as others, but at least there is the argument against the double recovery attempt by making up costs that were never paid, cutting £800 down to £400 straight away, even if you lost.

Also, in multi-PCN cases, it is possible to win some of the ticket arguments and lose others, e.g. if the PPC has less compelling, maybe very poor photo evidence for one charge, the Judge might decide that one cannot be upheld even if he/she considers the others are payable.

You even said yourself:

the ACTUAL picture taken from the Parking Officers camera is blurry and unreadable.

So you do have some idea of the defence.

Multi ticket cases ARE worth fighting.

I think you are being defeatist and there are grounds to defend this. You are up against UKPC, who you will KNOW from reading this forum recently (we hope) were banned by the DVLA in March and are currently under investigation. Tons about that here, you can show them as a disreputable firm who were banned in 2015 for falsifying photo evidence and are current DVLA-banned again now. Not a firm who come to this claim with clean hands, then.

Not a firm to negotiate and offer money to, IMHO. Who is the NAMED Defendant, Dad or you?