SCS Law Letter Received

ginamarina

I too have received a debt recovery letters from SCS Law for a parking charge notice received in January. I followed MSE advice and wrote to the company within 28 days , I did not get a reply, they then referred me to another company, I wrote to them, they said that I hadn't replied within the 28 days and still wanted the fine paid, I ignored them, and now I have a letter from the SCS Law - I am furious to say the least. this is a copy of my first letter and I also attached photos for evidence. I sent a similar letter to the next company Debt Recovery Plus Limited.... Where do I stand?

29th January 2019

Care Parking
xxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir or Madam,

Ref No: xxxxxxxxx
Vehicle registration number: RExx xxx

You issued me with a parking ticket on 8th January 2019 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following :-

• The alleged contravention did not occur i.e. NOT PARKED WHOLLY WITHIN BAY
I do not feel that the vehicle was parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. This is due to the fact the car park at 7am is very dark and the lighting is inadequate, and when parked the bay was actually flooded and it was impossible to see any lines as they were covered in mud. The parking lines, whilst are there, are very poorly marked. My back tyres were within the parking bay, the whole body of my car was also within the lines.

See below - photo was added

• The signage is inadequate
Where I parked the signs at this time, are at least 15ft too high for anyone to read, therefore the car park in question has no clear, sensibly placed, and reasonable signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally.The parking bays are also too small to reasonably park a car without causing damage to other vehicles

• Mitigating circumstances
There are mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle was parked where it was and the charge should be waived for this reason.
The person who had parked their car next to me had parked so close to the line, that if I was to park any closer they would have damaged by car door trying access theirs.

Upon leaving the car park I witnessed other vehicles parked exactly the same and they did not have any parking tickets issued to them. See below

- picture

• The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable
The amount you have charged is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner.

In my case, the £100 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner. I therefore feel the charge you have asked for is excessive.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.

Yours faithfully,

since this letter was sent the car park had a make over and new lines drawn and more signs put up.

Debt Recovery Plus Limited
xxxxxxx
Dear Debt Recovery Plus

Your Ref: xxxxx
Parking Charge Ref No: xxxxxx
Vehicle registration No: RExx xxx

Thank you for your letter dated 7th June, in my response to my Parking Charge notice for which I was issued with a parking ticket on 8th January 2019 ad my belief it was unfairly issued. I wrote to anchor Security/Care Parking on 29th January advising that I would not be paying their demand for payment for the following and I will reiterate these to you:-

I do not feel that the vehicle was parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. This is due to the fact the car park at 7am is very dark and the lighting is inadequate. The parking lines, whilst are there, are very poorly marked. My back tyres were within the parking bay, the whole body of my car was also within the lines
See below photo
• The signage is inadequate
Where I parked the signs at this time, are at least 15ft too high for anyone to read, therefore the car park in question has no clear, sensibly placed, and reasonable signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. The parking bays are also too small to reasonably park a car without causing damage to other vehicles

• Mitigating circumstances
There are mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle was parked where it was and the charge should be waived for this reason.
The person who had parked their car next to me had parked so close to the line, that if I was to park any closer they would have damaged by car door trying access theirs.

Upon leaving the car park I witnessed other vehicles parked exactly the same and they did not have any parking tickets issued to them. See below

- picture

• The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable
The amount you have charged is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner.

In my case, the £100 charge being asked and now the £160 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner. I therefore feel the charge you have asked and the fine is excessive. I am also on Debt Management and cannot afford this.

I advised them that if they chose to pursue me that I would not enter into any correspondence and this would be the only letter they would receive from me until they answered the specific points raised in my letter. They did not respond and chose instead to refer the case to yourselves which is the final reason why I will not be paying the inappropriate fine – lack of acknowledgement.

Since I wrote to them, they have improved the signage and the lines have been renewed, which I feel means they must have looked at this following complaints.

I have not responded to your letters as since receiving them we have received some devastating family news and this has just not been a priority as this sad time.

Yours faithfully,

Redx

Remove the personal details like references

Ignore drp

Follow the advice on putting the case on hold with SCS

Email a SAR to the DPO at the PPC and obtain all the documents and pictures and data about you and your vehicle

Then wait for court papers from the CCBC in Northampton

The_Slithy_Tove

Between the first letter from SCS Law and the second, has the amount they allege you owe gone up? If so, how do they justify it?

ginamarina

yes initial parking charge was £100 amount is now £160 - ridiculous amount

what is SAR - DPO and PPC short for please?

i have sought advice from parking ombudsman who have asked me to put it in writing on BPA complaints site as i should have received a reply from my first letter as it was within 28 days and not simply passed it to debt recovery.
i am trying to get hold of SCS now to put case on hold.

KeithP

SAR = Subject Access Request

DPO = Data Protection Officer

PPC = private parking company

All commonly used acronyms are explained in post #5 of the NEWBIES thread.

Redx

See post #5 of the newbies sticky thread near the top of the forum

You should be reading that thread before posting, so you get up to speed

ginamarina

just an update - I have contacted SCS Law who have said that I have to pay now and will not put the case on hold, and that Gladstone Brookes have already applied to the courts and all I can do now is wait for a court date and more costs will be incurred. I am livid.

The_Deep

It is not Gladstone Brookes it is Gladstones, a very low rent law firm indeed.

Many judges regard these claims as a trifle, a waste of court time,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis.

Also, if they add unauthorised charges the claim is likely to be thrown out as an abuse of the system.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

If they are silly enough to take this to court they may struggle. They chances of you having to pay are slight.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Quentin

You say you sent that appeal on advice from "MSE"

Presumably you don't mean the advice in this forums FAQ thread?

KeithP

ginamarina wrote: »

i have sought advice from parking ombudsman...

Who is the 'parking ombudsman'?

ginamarina

Hi sorry, no I read advice on previous pages on MSE, then on composing a letter, which I got no response to as stated earlier - on the 21st day after receipt of initial notice. I only found these blog pages/FAO threads today, which I hope is not too late. I am new to this and in total panic.
I will write to my MP and quote new legislation. All the comments above have been really helpful. My main argument is that £100 rising to £160 is way in excess of any commercially justifiable loss to the company or the landowner, the lines were waterlogged and unclear and even though I was half way on the line, so was everyone else and it did not stop anyone else parking in the bay next to me. it's not pay and display so there was no loss of revenue for the car park. I will see what happens next. I need a second pair of eyes on the FAO just in case I miss something. thanks again