UKPC ltd - SCS Law Letter Before Claim actions

Apnetwork

Hi All,

Apologies if this has already been spoken about - new to this so not sure if I should of replied to someone else thread or if i should of created my own one.

The keeper of the car has received a letter from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd and Debt Recovery Plus. They are stating that the driver owe £145 due to 'parking for longer than the allowed time, as per the signage'. The letter states that 'unless our client receives full payment from you within the next 14 days, UKPC LTD may take legal steps towards commencing legal proceedings against you.'

The problem is, when the accused was parking in the location stated, there was no ticketing system, anyone can get in and out of the parking area without any intervention. The driver never got a ticket on the windscreen. Also the keeper vaguely remembers a sign however this is as you are entering the car park in a vehicle - the accused feels like there was at least 4 paragraphs of writing on the signs and nothing clear enough to state the time you could stay.

Now I have read a few different threads and although some are saying the same sort of things, there are few differences. I thought I would create a new thread specific to this letter.

I have also read the NEWBIES thread but cannot see an area for the letter before claim?

Can I get some advice on the drivers next steps?

There is advice on threads to say not to contact Debt Recovery Plus so I am going to draft a letter to SCS Law and UKPC. Other threads have said to do a SAR form, I just want some assistance in what I should be sending to each company.

Thanks in advance.

beamerguy

The SCS "14 day letter scam" :rotfl:

No point in replying to scammers, DRP, UKPC or SCS.

You don't owe £145, it's a fake add on.

IGNORE ....... before SCS can go further, they must comply with law.

** You must get an LBC ... LETTER BEFORE CLAIM
** Provide proof of their claim, inc pics, signs
** Proof of their charges
** 30 days to rebut/respond

Come back here if you get a LBC

You can see that the "14 day letter" .... really is rubbish

No harm in a SAR to SCS and UKPC ...... gives them something do whilst
they consider how else to scam you

Redx

your first task is to edit the above post #1 again and not use the following words

"MY , ME , MYSELF & I", they have no place on these matters

its THE DRIVER for what happened on the day and THE KEEPER for anything since that day (these sc@mmers read public forums like this one and take screenshots)

now because you have quoted MAY in their letter, it indicates to me that its a debt collector letter from DRP and NOT from SCS

check it again, who does it tell you to pay or to contact ? DRPL ? if so, they sent it , NOT scs law

if DRP sent it, SCS wont know anything about it, so why would yo write to SCS LAW about a letetr they did not send ? doesnt make sense, you have been duped by the letterhead (which was their intention)

DRP are sc@mmers and should be IGNORED

send your SAR to the DPO of the PPC involved by checking their privacy page for the details, adapt the legal beagles SAR, plenty of advice on this in other threads and in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread , post #2

post #4 of that thread tells you about ignoring debt collectors like DRP, so IGNORE them completely, dont even tell us what they say, we dont care what DRP or ZENITH or ZZPS say - they do not exist for us


if SCS LAW send you an LBC with financial forms and 30 days to reply, then do the LBC REBUTTAL - post #2 definitely mentions LBC stage so read it AGAIN



and / or if you get an MCOL in the post, see post #2 yet again for advice of dealing with it

Apnetwork

Thanks both really appreciate the advice - I have edited the original post.

The letter says to contact DRP, it looks like I have been duped by the letter head and signature.

I have had a quick look at another thread where someone is in the same situation as me and I am going to write an email (not letter) to PPC:

Your Ref: xxxxxx
Dear Sirs,
I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 11th December 2018 .
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.
Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.
Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.
As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.
Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.
I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

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

Redx

ok , and send a cut down version of that based on the legal beagles SAR example to the DPO at the PPC by checking their privacy page

so one is a SAR, the other is using the new PaP rules brought in 14 months ago


UKPC are sc@mmers and have been banned twice by the DVLA for malpractice and fraud, plus named and shamed in the House Of Commons too


if the letter you received was from DRP, ignore it

if it had the WWF letterhead on it , it wouldnt mean that the WWF charity sent it , the devil is in the detail

The_Deep

UKPC are fraudsters

https://www.bing.com/search?q=ukpc+fraudsters+the+telegraph&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-gb&httpsmsn=1&refig=48c0a34647b9455bb649864d51955c57&PC=ACTS&sp=1&ghc=1&qs=AS&pq=ukpc+fraud&sc=3-10&cvid=48c0a34647b9455bb649864d51955c57&cc=GB&setlang=en-GB

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/

If this is going t court, someone should bring it to the attention of the judge.

This smells of scam, complain to your MP

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

beamerguy

The letter says to contact DRP, it looks like I have been duped by the letter head and signature.

You have received a MISLEADING LETTER

Pass this to your local Trading Standards on this basis

MISLEADING AND AGGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL PRACTICES
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721872/misleading-aggressive-commercial-practices-guidance.pdf

Part 1: Liability for misleading and aggressive
practices
The 2008 Regulations make misleading actions unlawful
(see regulation 5). An action by a trader is misleading if it
contains false information or if it is likely to mislead
the average consumer in its overall presentation.

Consumer payments and “civil recovery”
The Regulations amend the definition of a “transactional decision”
to expressly cover demands for payment from a consumer in full
or partial settlement of the consumer’s liabilities or purported
liabilities to the trader (see reg 2(1A) of the 2008 Regulations).
This means that misleading and aggressive practices in respect of
such demands would now clearly lead to both criminal sanctions
(under the 2008 Regulations)