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

DAngel

@coupon-mad thank you, that’s brilliantly written and would love to use it although emailed my original response earlier this week.

Could I send this in follow up, or am I better to keep in my back pocket and use some of the content when it comes to making my defence.

Thanks again ����

Coupon-mad

Yes I would send it immediately you get a reply, as a fast follow up. It looks best if you have informed the claimant in pre-action comms, about this issue.

And of course it lends itself to a vital part of your defence.

DAngel

Agree, thank you, i've sent it in follow up and just slightly tweaked so that it works as a follow-on letter. Can I just also compliment you on your use of vernacular - it was brilliantly worded!

DAngel

I have now received an email reply dated 12th October from SCS with the Evidence Bundle that I requested against the pre-action protocol, and 30 days in which to reply after which time they will anticipate instructions from UKPC to proceed further.

The evidence is weak to say the least. Some of the photographs provided show the car in pitch black and it is impossible to see where, or how it is parked, some show pictures of the signage on a wall, but I have no idea where that wall is - it doesn't look like it's on my estate at all. Some pictures show the car parked in a layby with just the very edge of the back wheel on a double yellow.

The contract they have provided a copy of is with OM Property Management - this is the managing agent of the site, they have however since changed their name to First Port. There is no contract or agreement with the actual Landowner.

Also, the entirety of the evidence and letter positioning seems to be in the present tense eg. "The photographs of the signage present at the site" - as we know, these are no longer present at the site.

Let me know what I should do now. Was conscious not to copy and paste the entire letter and all the evidence in here just yet, but happy to (minus personal details) if you need to see it. Look forward to your steer.

Thanks

DAngel

Hello, conscious i have 30 days to go back to SCS with a response on the evidence bundle they sent through, can anyone give me any steer on best practice replies?

@coupon-mad ?

Coupon-mad

I would list the things they have failed to provide and tell them you will counter-claim for £500 for distress arising from their client's trespass, harassment, private nuisance and data misuse, if UKPC proceed.

Enclose some useful phrases from the lease to drum home your primacy of contract.

DAngel

My reply to the SCS evidence letter. I realise i've left this to the 11th hour but have been abroad.

Any thoughts @coupon-mad ?

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear XXX,

I acknowledge receipt of your email and ‘evidence’ on 12th October 2018 and have provided my response below:

You purport to you client’s claim being a contractual one and mention that your ‘client manages the site in question pursuant to a contract with the managing agent which confers authority on your client to operate parking controls at the site’ however as you know and mention in your email, this was redacted due to a majority vote by the residents. To say “our client manages the site” is incorrect. UKPC no longer operate on the road due to a majority vote by the residents to remove them from the premises. You also say, again in present tense that your “clients contract is with OM Property Management Ltd”, however this is also not true as the road is currently monitored by another parking firm who are not your client UKPC.

The so called ‘contract’ between your client and myself is a deeply flawed argument. As you know one of the key elements which form a contract is consideration, that is to say something of value which flows from both parties to the other. In this instance, I offered your client nothing of value and therefore no contract can have been formed.

The signage photographs that are included in the evidence are wholly inadequate. Not only are they not clearly visible or readable due to being partially or completely covered by plant growth, there is also no evidence that they were displayed in the same carpark that the car is parked in as cannot be seen in relation to the road, the car or the wider context of the land, so could in fact be anywhere. There is currently no signage from your client on the road at all.

According to the layout of the signage plot, it is not made clear that the car parks around the back of the land were monitored on under the same rules.

The signage example in your evidence states for all residents to Show valid parking permits however, no communication or advance notice was ever sent to residents to implement a permit scheme therefore rendering the terms invalid.

The photographs of the car are unclear as most, if not all are taken in pitch black with no clear and visible indication on what constitutes a ‘marked bay’.

The damages sought are unreasonable both in the sense that the term imposing charges of £2250 for breach is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and that any damages sought for breach of contract should be a genuine pre estimate of loss flowing directly from the breach. As far as I am aware neither your client nor the landowner has suffered any loss whatsoever. You are put to strict proof to provide a detailed, itemised breakdown of the alleged loss suffered.

I intend to counter-claim for £500 for distress arising from your clients trespass, harassment, private nuisance and data misuse if UKPC proceed.

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.

I look forward to hearing from you within 30 days with your response.

Sincerely

DAngel

on 13th November i received a reply to my above letter saying:

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the above matter.

We acknowledge receipt of the same. We are currently taking instructions on this matter from our client and will respond to you substantively in due course.

i've since heard nothing back and it has been well over 30 days. Where do i stand with this? Obviously, I don't want to chase them, but they haven't met their obligations in replying to me within the stated time, so not sure if that gives me an advantage? Or does this mean they have dropped it?

Any guidance would be appreciated!

CVKTA

Hi DAngel, did you ever get a response to this?
I've received the same thing and looking at ways to contest it!
Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks

DAngel

No response at all! i'm just trying to forget about it for the time being and hoping nothing more will come from it!