Letter Before Claim - SCS Law & UKPC - Please Advise

CVKTA

Coupon-mad,
Thanks as always.
Will continue to update.
CVKTA

DAngel

Hey CVKTA, still following your thread and think you’re just a few steps behind me.... I’ve just written my defence which was bloody hard work but might help you when you come to write yours as is a ukpc / scs / residential one.

As yet no one has given me steer on whether it looks good to go, but keep an eye on my thread for any amendments and hopefully it will be helpful for you. Obviously want to make sure I win first too!!

Good luck!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5896798/letter-before-claim-scs-law-ukpc-case-won

CVKTA

Thanks DAngel!

I had a court proceedings 14 day notice but then at the same time I replied again and they’ve come back with the below, any suggestions?!?

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd

I write in response to your email dated 2 August 2019. I have now received my client's instructions.

The introduction of parking regulations at the site does not change or vary the terms of the lease. Clause 6.4 provides the company "absolute discretion to revoke amend or add to such regulations". Therefore, it does not affect the 'primacy of contract' or vary any terms, and consulation with tenants is therefore not required. The leasehold agreement is binding and so are there terms therein. The leasehold agreement does not provide an unfettered right to park in the parking space and such a right to park there, is also subject to the remaining terms. As such, the lease affords the company the right to introduce regulations as they see fit. In this case, the terms and conditions of parking at the site are enforced to prevent non-permit holders from parking at the site and on the landowner's property. This coincides with the leasehold agreement allowing leaseholder's the use of certain parking spaces, and therefore not conflicting with the lease.

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.

I trust the above clarifies my client's position in that the parking regulations do not alter the terms of the lease. Please also note that the case of Pace v Mr N is not binding precedent and is clearly distinguishable, on the grounds that no clause to implement regulations was discussed in the judgment.

I look forward to receiving your response within 14 days.


Thanks in advance!!

CVKTA

CVKTA

Also I will have a good read when I get some time later on tonight.

I hope you win against these scumbags!!!

nosferatu1001

Thats garbage

They cannot introduce a regualtion that removes a right - to park without a permit - that was there.

They cannot introduce a regulation that requires you to enter a contract weith a third party in order to park in your own space, as to claim so means they have removed your right to park unless you follow their rules

WRite back, pointing out you will be claiming full costs and WHEN yuo win, will be applying for an injunciton against them.

CVKTA

Thanks nosferatu1001

I’ll use your points in round 999 of email tennis!
It’s getting awfully boring now!

beamerguy

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.

The BPA code of practice only applies to BPA members

The actual law being POFA2012 says very clearly ...
"This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4"


It is POFA2012 that the consumer relies upon and NOT a code of practice written by a membership scheme for it's members

The Supreme court only ruled that a parking charge of £85 was acceptable (even though the norm is £100), The court did NOT approve any further charges.

SCS Law don't have a clue, fancy confusing the BPA code of practice with the law POFA2012 ????? VERY SAD

You are not a BPA member so are not bound to their CoP

Maybe you tell SCS Law they are talking rubbish

Coupon-mad

The introduction of parking regulations at the site does not change or vary the terms of the lease. Clause 6.4 provides the company "absolute discretion to revoke amend or add to such regulations".

I assume you have checked that section of the lease and probably spotted that they have cut the quoted sentence short, or something sneaky like that?

Leases normally have a caveat that says only 'reasonable' regulations can be introduced for the good of the residents & smooth running of the estate.

And it might say that ONLY the landowner themselves can do that, not an agent?

Assume everything these scammers say is a lie and you won't go far wrong.

Search the forum for UNION JACK to see what bargepole posted about a Judge's view of the above sort of case. It will help you know what to say in your WS, later.

Umkomaas

beamerguy wrote: »

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.

The BPA code of practice only applies to BPA members

Have UKPC joined the IPC?

CVKTA

Hi all, thanks as alwys for your inputs.
I've drafted my latest response, any eyes and opinions welcome....


I can’t help but notice that you failed to acknowledge any of the points that I raised in my previous correspondence. I also can’t help but notice that yet again, you’ve requested a response within 14 days from me which is not the first time; yet, your responses to my correspondence have varied from weeks up to months.
Abuse of Process, malpractice, unethical, negligent and harassing are just some of the terms to describe your actions throughout this process. You began frivolous and have now become plain rude and your actions have become a harassment.
Under the objectives of the Pre-Action Protocol, point (c) states that we are meant to ‘try to settle the issues without proceedings’.
Looking back through our correspondences, you have made no effort to try to settle this argument or provided a simple two-way discussion. You have been rude, dismissive of anything that I have raised and harassing.
I will be reporting you to the SRA immediately after scribing this.
The actions completed by you and your client are nothing more than a SCAM.

Now, reverting back to your comments from your previous correspondence, as I wouldn’t be so rude as to just ignore them, you’ve stated (Clause 6.4 has been cut short again by you of course. The part about ‘in the interest of good management has been omitted):
The introduction of parking regulations at the site does not change or vary the terms of the lease. Clause 6.4 provides the company "absolute discretion to revoke amend or add to such regulations". Therefore, it does not affect the 'primacy of contract' or vary any terms, and consulation with tenants is therefore not required. The leasehold agreement is binding and so are there terms therein. The leasehold agreement does not provide an unfettered right to park in the parking space and such a right to park there, is also subject to the remaining terms. As such, the lease affords the company the right to introduce regulations as they see fit. In this case, the terms and conditions of parking at the site are enforced to prevent non-permit holders from parking at the site and on the landowner's property. This coincides with the leasehold agreement allowing leaseholder's the use of certain parking spaces, and therefore not conflicting with the lease.

Your client can not introduce a regulation that in turn removes a right that was already there that I have bound by my lease.
Your client can not introduce a regulation that requires me to enter a contract with a third party in order for me to park in a space that I already, under the instructions of my lease, have the right of enjoyment to. You and your client claiming against me for parking in my own space suggests that my right to park in that space was removed?

The famous clause 6.4 which you decided to cut short when quoting also opens with:
‘The company may at any time or times during the Term in the interest of good management…’

Please tell me how SCAMMERS such as your client, inflating charges and claiming costs against residents for parking a vehicle in their OWN DEDICATED SPACE can constitute good management?

If your clients were there to prevent non-residents and members of the general public from parking in residents spaces then I would be a lot more in agreement with the operation as it would then be providing me (the leaseholder) a service.

You’ve also kindly pointed out the British Parking Associations Code of Practice. The BPA CoP only applies to BPA Members.
As a consumer, in this instance I rely upon POFA2012. The actual law that is POFA2010 clearly states (Schedule 4):
“This additional charge is not recoverable under the protections of freedoms act 2012”
It is POFA2012 that I, the consumer rely upon and NOT a code of practice written by a membership scheme for its members.
I am not a BPA member so I am not bound by their code of practice.