Letter Before Claim - SCS Law & UKPC - CASE WON!

DAngel

I've now read many a thread here now including the NEWBIES thread and have drafted a 'lite' response to my Letter Before Claim which arrived on 11th September.

I've not included any notes of my defence as this is not at Claim stage yet, but to give some context:

15 Tickets were issued between 2014 -2016 on private land, for being parked outside a marked bay. UKPC operated on the land without majority consent from the residents that live on the road. I did not make a prior appeal to any of the tickets (my bad, i know).

UKPC were then revoked, as was all their signage so nothing now exists on the road. I also no longer own the car in question.

Letter as follows, taken from a template a user put together a few years ago (as couldn't see a more recent one?) and have taken out a lot of the detail which seemed a little unnecessary.

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of 11th September 2018
You have sent a Letter Before Claim, however, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and, fails to provide photographic evidence. It does not contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.

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

1. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
2. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
4. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
5. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
6. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
7. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
8. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
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


Look forward to thougths, thanks in advance!

DAngel

I've responded via email to SCS with the above letter. Will wait to see what happens next!

Quentin

What help are you asking for?

The next step is you either do or don't get a claim

Wait and see

If you have the inclination you can start researching your defence rather than do nothing

#2 in the newbies FAQ thread covers Court claims right through from the lbcca to the hearing.

DAngel

Thanks, I now realise that all I have to do is wait and see although was slightly perturbed by the letter before claim...but know I’ve done all I can do for now. Also I thought good to start the thread regardless with my trail of events incase it escalates to Claim.
Watch this space...

Coupon-mad

15 Tickets were issued between 2014 -2016 on private land, for being parked outside a marked bay. UKPC operated on the land without majority consent from the residents that live on the road.

Are you a tenant there, or a flat leasehold owner?

What does your AST or lease say about parking on the estate?

Were you there before UKPC were?

DAngel

Are you a tenant there, or a flat leasehold owner?

What does your AST or lease say about parking on the estate?

Were you there before UKPC were?

@Coupon-mad I am a tenant, I have lived at the property since 2010 and as far as I can remember, UKPC started patrolling in c.2014 through to 2016 when they were revoked due to a majority vote by the residents of the apartments to get them out. My neighbour was actually the one responsible for leading 'the movement' so if i need more info, I can ask her, but otherwise fairly in the dark about what happened and the finer details.

I read through my tenancy agreement in detail this morning and there are no clauses or mentions of parking on the property included at all.

My email to SCS asks for proof of the contract with the landowner, however, I'm not sure whether the landowner instructed them in the first place, it could have been the managing agency (without prior consent from the residents).... I can't confirm this though as I don't know, and they are notoriously difficult to get hold of and get information from.

nosferatu1001

Is there anything at all saying how the car park can be used, any rights of acess etc? There must be *something*

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 House of Commons recently

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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

DAngel

i've re-read, nothing at all, it's a very generic agreement not specific to a block of flats. I have emailed my agent to double check and ensure i'm not missing anything.

nosferatu1001

In which case you will need ther head lease of your landlord
If you can, ask them for a copy
If they wont, or you don twnat to, fill out form OC2 at the land registry.

Coupon-mad

I think I would be less template-y and certainly never THANK them for a LBC:

Dear Sirs,

I refer to the baseless and unwelcome threat of court, contained in your letter of 11th September 2018.

You have sent a purported Letter Before Claim, however, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and, fails to provide photographic evidence.

It does not contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.

For your information, this appears to be part of a series of 'revenge claims' against residents, in a desperate attempt to squeeze more money from the failed operation, after UKPC were kicked out, as I understand it, for their predatory conduct and greed.

UKPC operated on the land without majority consent from the residents that live on the road and were causing a private nuisance.

All dwellings should have received advance notices and had a chance to comment on the consultation which sought to impose an ex-clamper firm and 'parking charges' on residents. Your client and their principal, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have had such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987.

I do not believe this took place and as such, your client has no cause of action because they had no right to be at the site, at all, nor to charge for parking.

UKPC were removed in 2016 after months of misery, as was all their signage and they were never to darken the doors or roadways again.

It seems to me that any Judge would see this as a typical scam operation, acting directly against the interests of residents, against the contemplation of the landowner, and constituting a derogation from grant.

The lack of consent of the leaseholders, who were able to reply upon their primacy of contract and easements/rights of way for parking for themselves, their tenants and their visitors, means the regime was unlawful throughout the time that UKPC were infesting the location.

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

1. A copy of the consultation undertaken in advance, and the outcome showing that the requirements of the L&T Act were met before enforcement began.

2. A copy of the advance notice that was purportedly sent to all residents, and proof that this was so served to my address at the material time before UKPC started their regime, akin to a protection racket at the site.

etc