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

Coupon-mad

You might also want to address this:

''In light of the above, it is our client's position that you are liable for the parking charge notices for the total sum of £2,250.00''

I would be stating that, even if their client jumps through all the hoops and convinces a Judge they have a cause of action, and that there was a contract, each PCN cannot recover an arbitrary £60 bolted on top of each PCN for no reason. Pursuant to the Beavis case and the POFA 2012, the only sum possibly recoverable is the 'parking charge' sum on any Notice to Keeper, not any damages, as there are none. State that: ''you and they both know you cannot add 'costs' in the small claims track, especially not by taking advantage of litigants in person and making up costs out of thin air, in a disingenuous attempt at double recovery and an abuse of the court process.''

DAngel

Thanks for your help. Added the final piece and have sent via email.

As always, let's watch this space!

DAngel

Hiya, me again! SCS's latest reply is in and as follows:

I write further to your email below, having obtained our client's instructions.

I have adopted the same numbering to the points raised in your email and have provided the response below:-

1. Our client's position remains that they operated on the site until 8 June 2018. The 15 parking charge notices were issued against your vehicle between 17 April 2014 to 8 September 2016 and therefore our client was still authorised to manage parking at the site pursuant to their contract with the managing agent. Accordingly, your argument that our client operated on the site until 19 October 2017 is immaterial, as the parking charge notices were issued until 2016 and are therefore valid. Please note, we will no longer be responding any further to this point.

2. Having considered the tenancy agreement provided, it does not state that you have an unfettered right to park your vehicle at the site. I refer you to clause 2.15 on page 7 states that all the agreements/restrictions are contained in the head lease affecting the premises. I have already set out the position in respect of the lease in my email dated 7 February 2019 (attached). Schedule 8 of the lease makes it clear that you need to comply with the estate regulations when using the parking spaces. Such regulations included the implementation of a parking scheme, which you breached by failing to abide with the terms and conditions of parking.

3. As previously explained, s.37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (variation of the lease) and/or s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (consultation of major works) do not apply to this matter.

4. As previously explained, an offer is made by the signage present at the site and upon entering the site, you agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of parking, as per the signage. Please note, the provision of the parking space for you to park your vehicle is seen as consideration. Accordingly, you entered into a contract by conduct with our client.

In light of the above, our client's position remains that you are liable for the parking charge notices for the total sum of £2,250.00. Please note, if an agreement cannot be reached between the parties, then court proceedings will need to be commenced for the Judge to make a decision.

I look forward to hearing from you within 14 days.


As always, thoughts, feedback and advice is welcomed.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5997200

Some ideas there, including case law. You will need it to defend, as they will sue.

DAngel

So do you think it's worth drafting a response to this email or just wait for them to send a CCC? I just feel like i've said everything I can say now.

Coupon-mad

I'd ask them for a breakdown as to how these scam PCNs add up to £2,250.00.

And if it were me replying I'd use the word 'scam', just as Parliament did in 2018.

DAngel

Thanks Coupon Mad, that is exactly what I have done... as below:

Can you send me a breakdown as to how these scam PCNs add up to £2,250.00?

As previously explained AND requested: this amount sought is unreasonable both in the sense that the term imposing charges of £2,250.00 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.

Coupon-mad

No to this, which shows you haven't read the ParkingEye v Beavis case:

As previously explained AND requested: this amount sought is unreasonable both in the sense that the term imposing charges of £2,250.00 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.

Absolutely no chance with that argument - which is why you didn't see it advised, either here or in the NEWBIES thread!

DAngel

I have read both, but a very long time ago, last year probably and this is all a foreign language to me, so just trying to piece things together as best as I can with your advice and in between a juggling a hectic job.

That paragraph was used in a previous email to them, and i posted it here and it was never highlighted before - I think I may have found it in another thread which I was advised to look at.

I'm questioning whether what I have talked about in previous emails is enough to build a solid defence - they have only countered each and every one of my arguments so far, which i appreciate is to be expected. I'm interested to see another thread where someone was parked outside a marked bay (apart from the thread you posted here last week which I have read), but from searches haven't found much.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for out marked bay defence or out marked bay claim and I reckon you will find loads as long as you change the advanced search to 'show results as posts' (never show as threads!).

You cannot argue no loss.

Forget that completely and just ask for a breakdown of the scam charges.

You do have a defence, everyone always does, and we see lots of threads like yours.