Letter Before Claim - SCS Law & UKPC - Please Advise

CVKTA

Thanks beamerguy!

Le_Kirk

Should you wish to enter into further dialogue with the PPC you might ask them to point you to the consultation between the landowner and the residents/tenants that was carried out BEFORE the parking restrictions were put in place and where more than 75% of the residents/tenants agreed with no more than 10% disagreeing.

CVKTA

Thanks Le_Kirk.
I will query this (again). It’s amazing the amount a questions that I have asked with no reply!!
Thanks again

CVKTA

Interested to hear our resident Coupon-mads thoughts at this time..

Coupon-mad

I agree with Le_Kirk.

Tell them that the lease does not allow them to do anything except aspects of 'management' that are both reasonable and in the interests of residents. Which imposing a parking firm who will target and sue residents certainly is not, by any reasonable interpretation.

Send them the relevant section of the L&T Act as an attachment and ask for the proof that leaseholders were consulted and the required consensus was obtained, before they imposed this onerous regime which certainly constitutes interference with the rights and grants under the leases, and indeed a private nuisance.

CVKTA

Will do, thanks C-m.

CVKTA

beamerguy wrote: »

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

I've just dug out copies of the notices in the car park which state:

'Failure to comply at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicles driver.
'Unpaid Parking Charges will be passed to our debt recovery agent at which point an additional charge of £60 will apply'

Am I correct to point out that at this late stage, I am not being chased by their debt recovery agents, I'm being chased by their appointent solicitor so those additional fees are nonsense??

Thanks

CVKTA

Le_Kirk

The £60 "fee" is nonsense FULL STOP. Read beamerguy's thread in full.

beamerguy

CVKTA wrote: »

I've just dug out copies of the notices in the car park which state:

'Failure to comply at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) being issued to the vehicles driver.
'Unpaid Parking Charges will be passed to our debt recovery agent at which point an additional charge of £60 will apply'

Am I correct to point out that at this late stage, I am not being chased by their debt recovery agents, I'm being chased by their appointent solicitor so those additional fees are nonsense??

Thanks

CVKTA

I think that there is no doubt that what are seeing from members of both ATA's is an illegal cartel operating. IT'S ALWAYS £60 ?

The debt collector stage has finished for you now as they failed.

There is no provision in POFA2012 for debt collector fees of £60

The Supreme court ruled and makes clear that the maximum sum of the parking charge includes the operators cost, debt collection being part of that.

There is and always will be just one charge which is mainly £100

UKPC are attempting a double charge for the same incident which is against the county courts ruling about double recovery
DRP as a debt recovery company offer a "no win no fee" or they will apply their own £60

DRP as an example now hide this fact but that's not a problem because we pre-empted this hence many of us have screenshots of the web site which are available to anyone being taken to court.

UKPC and SCSLaw are practicing Abuse of Process and they do this on the pretence that the code of practice they work under allows them to do so.

They totally forget that the two codes of practice is only for members of the ATA's and has nothing to do with the motorist

ABUSE OF PROCESS BY SCSLAW
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

The IPC for example state in their CoP that "if there is an opportunity to add a further charge, the maximum will be £60

This statement is contrary to POFA2012 and the Supreme court and entices the PPC to charge more which they are not entitled to

nosferatu1001

Ask thenm how they are avoidning the POFA limitation to the amount on the NtK and no more?
Also, how the debt recovery fees of £60 are now their "initial legal costs" - assuming you got the same letter everyone else did with that amount in?

State that they are only allowed to introduce reasonable regualtions
1) On construction a regualtion that derogates from grant is not reasonable nor permitted
2) THere was no consultation to vary the lease
3) Any regualtions were imposed by a stranger to the lease, with no rights under it.