Letter Before Claim - SCS Law & UKPC - Please Advise

beamerguy

I understand what you saying but you need to take out such language as scammers. You do not want a paper trail that would make a judge look over his glasses at you.

SCS already know they are working for a scammer and in the case of UKPC, a known fraudster

It's the paper trail from SCS or as you say the lack of, which will point the judge to their incompetence

The_Deep

Call them cowards and chlorinated chickens instead.

Le_Kirk

I would modify your third paragraph as, upon first reading, it looks like you are agreeing with them. You need to put in something like "and here I quote from your correspondence - "Clause 6.4 diddly, diddly, dum........""

CVKTA

Brilliant, thanks guys I will edit with your advice.... I may leave the cowards and chlorinated chickens part out though...

Coupon-mad

Why not use this opportunity to warn them about your costs so far xx hours at £19 per hour LiP rate, already at some £400...and if they proceed to court then your attendance costs will be added and you will seek all costs on the indemnity basis for wholly unreasonable conduct in litigation.

Judges like to see that the C was fairly warned about the costs you will later try for.

CVKTA

Thanks C-M,. forgive my ignorance, where is that £400 from?

Is there anything I should be specifically aware of when building and calculating my costs?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

CVKTA wrote: »

Thanks C-M,. forgive my ignorance, where is that £400 from?

They are your costs so far xx hours at £19 per hour LiP rate, plus your printing and paper and time spent reading and researching the law as an inexperienced lay person. Might be £300. Make it nice and juicy though! Lots of hours.

Is there anything I should be specifically aware of when building and calculating my costs?

Look at the examples of COSTS SCHEDULES in the NEWBIES thread post #2 and read StubbornGoat's thread all the way through, the one about UKCPM where I attended with him & we very nearly got £1500 in costs allowed and were only refused due to the date he served the other side with those costs, that our Judge thought was a bit of an ambush.

CVKTA

Thanks for all latest input guys.
I've redrafted the latest serve, if anyone else has any input then do let me know.

I'm giving them the full 14 days requested and not a moment less...

CVKTA

Good Evening all,

Latest response received from UKPC/SCS Law. Any advice on early steps to get ahead would be appreciated.

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd

I write in response to your email dated 11 September 2019. I have now received my client's instructions in respect of this matter.

For the avoidance of any doubt, it is our position that there has been no abuse of process, malpractice, unethical behaviour, negligence or harassment.

Please be advised that my client is not claiming that a right to park in a certain space has been removed. Rather, that a right to park at the site was granted subject to a lease, which in turn allows for regulations to be introduced. My client has been instructed to introduce parking regulations at the site. It remains my client's position that the introduction of parking controls at the site was in the interest of good management. The parking regulations were introduced to deter non-permit holders from parking at the site. Whether or not your agree with this decision, should be raised with the landowner accordingly. The leasehold agreement at no stage grants an unfettered right to park at the site, as per the aforementioned Clause 6.4.

Please be advised that Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not reference an 'additional charge'. All charges being claimed by my client thus far were provided for on the signage installed at the site, which were agreed to upon parking. We note your comments in relation to your costs and will oppose you being awarded the same in the event that this matter proceeds to a hearing.

As it appears no agreement is likely to be reached between the parties in this matter, I have received instructions to issue county court proceedings to recover the sums owed after 14 days from the date of this email. It is our position that your queries have been substantively responded to, and it is apparent that the parties are unlikely to come to an agreement on the same.

Yours sincerely,

Thanks, CVKTA

beamerguy

CVKTA wrote: »

Please be advised that Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not reference an 'additional charge'. All charges being claimed by my client thus far were provided for on the signage installed at the site, which were agreed to upon parking. We note your comments in relation to your costs and will oppose you being awarded the same in the event that this matter proceeds to a hearing.

No, it does not refer to "additional charge" that is what judges have said to confirm ABUSE OF PROCESS

POFA2012 says clearly

(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper

So if the said notice states £100, it is £100 and that's it.

This is confirmed by the Supreme court saying ...
198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''


SCSLaw should return to the drawing board unless they want to be badly spanked in court for Abuse of Process