Letter Before Claim - SCS Law & UKPC - Please Advise

CVKTA

beamerguy said:

So, they are relying that the £60 fake add-on is actually real, or are they relying on a fabrication

It looks like they are sticking with the £60.00 is real!

Fruitcake

Please post a copy of the alleged contract. Often it is possible to pick holes in it, and recently one was proven to be a false instrument because it had information that could not possibly be true. 

CVKTA

Thanks Fruitcake.

Fruitcake

Any chance you could post that the right way up and in the right order please?

CVKTA

beamerguy

CVKTA said:

beamerguy said:

So, they are relying that the £60 fake add-on is actually real, or are they relying on a fabrication

It looks like they are sticking with the £60.00 is real!

It's still not too late to tell them again and this time, your letter will be shown to the judge

The sums being claimed by my client are in accordance with the British Parking Associations' Code of Practice (current version 7 - January 2018). Clause 19.5 provides that a parking charge notice may be £100.00, and clause 19.9 states that "extra 'recovery' charges" may be claimed to recover charges for debt recovery or court action. The Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 also decided that parking charge notices do not contravene the penalty rule or Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, provided they protect a legitimate interest.

1: They have failed to give their legal authority to add £60
2: The BPA CoP is strictly for a BPA member, it is not a law or contract for a motorist or even a county court judge. The BPA CoP goes against POFA2012 and the ruling of the Supreme plus the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   Furthermore it is against the county courts ruling of double recovery.
3: You will refer this letter to the Judge.

NOTE: In their letter they refer to the Consumer Contract Regulations 1999
CVKTA ..... If you want a letter that will be awkward for them, do let me know

CVKTA

beamerguy said:

NOTE: In their letter they refer to the Consumer Contract Regulations 1999
CVKTA ..... If you want a letter that will be awkward for them, do let me know

Each correspondance with you guys amazes me still. So appreciative.
A letter would be fantastic!

beamerguy

CVKTA said:

beamerguy said:

NOTE: In their letter they refer to the Consumer Contract Regulations 1999
CVKTA ..... If you want a letter that will be awkward for them, do let me know

Each correspondance with you guys amazes me still. So appreciative.
A letter would be fantastic!

ok, PM me and let's get it together.  I do it this way, not to hide from the regulars but the scammers read this forum 
Once we have a suitable reply, it can all be published here

Johnersh

The signature page is NOT the same document and indeed documents should *never* be prepared in that way to prevent fraud.

1. Look at the quality of the copy, we go from blue to black 
2. The first 2 pages appear to have no page numbering, the third page does
3. Looking at the footer compare the alignment of the text with the approved operator roundels/accreditations. On the signature page the text starts under the third roundel. On the other pages, well, not so much.  

CVKTA

Johnersh said:

The signature page is NOT the same document and indeed documents should *never* be prepared in that way to prevent fraud.

1. Look at the quality of the copy, we go from blue to black 
2. The first 2 pages appear to have no page numbering, the third page does
3. Looking at the footer compare the alignment of the text with the approved operator roundels/accreditations. On the signature page the text starts under the third roundel. On the other pages, well, not so much.  

Thank you Johnersh,
I will make a thorough point of this. Yet another indication of their scams...