We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
SCS-Law Letter Before Claim, Ukpc - Court Claim
erasec
Posts: 23 Forumite
Greetings MSE, and thank you all for the precious advice available over the years.
I have received a LBC from SCS Law, on behalf of UKPC, for about 5 parking charge notice for my scooter parked in private land.
One of the PCN was given in the parking lot of a shopping centre, the other 4 under my home.
At the shopping centre, in absence of motorcycle bay, I parked next to a car bay, away from pedestrian passage as I always do. Unfortunately, in July 2016 I found a UKPC notice on the scooter.
Similar story at my address, I have been living in this block of flats since 2014 as a private tenant. I don’t have access to a bay either in the garage or the parking lot and the all area is controlled by UKPC. There no motorcycle bays or permit available, I contacted the property managers to ask for it, and over the years I did like every other motorcycle do, park away from the car bays and away from pedestrian and car passage, without any issues. Usually motorcycle are allowed to park if it’s done sensibly, depending on council regulations when on the road.
In 2018 I started collecting a few UKPC notices. After a quick online search, I decided to ignore them. I am now appealing to a couple of recent ones.
I moved the bike around, thinking that maybe the spot was wrong, but I received pcn even inside the locked garage at the ground floor of the house. I have access to the garage like cyclist and bikers do. I have always parked away from marked car bays, and away from passage.
I still park inside the garage, the scooter is now covered and the tickets stopped.
I have requested a SAR from UKPC, and SCS LAW to comply with the code of practice.
They have replied to both request, and now I am planning to dispute the claim and prepare for a defence, but I am confused on the legal appealing points.
This is a summary of the legal correspondence between me and SCS Law:
From me:
Dear SCS Law,
I hereby acknowledge your Letter Before Claim dated 10/09/2019 and dispute all charges which I consider to be unlawful, exorbitant and punitive.
I believe that your claim is unclear and fails to comply with the Practice Direction.
I would ask you to present a compliant case, by providing further details:
1. List of full names and addresses details of the parties contracting with your client for the provision of car park management services.
2. List of full name and address details of the landowners, if different from 1 above.
3. An itemised breakdown of any losses you have incurred because of this parking event.
4. An itemised breakdown of any losses the party contracting with you and (if different) landowners have incurred as a result of this parking event.
5. List of the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely on in court.
6. An explanation as to how the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 making the keeper liable have been satisfied. I consider your Parking Charge Notice to be invalid on the grounds that it does not identify the creditor, contrary to paragraph 9 (2) (h) of Schedule 4.
You will appreciate it is necessary for the parties in any dispute to exhaust all other options before resorting to court proceedings. I therefore suggest that you issue me with a POPLA verification code to enable me to refer this matter for independent adjudication.
I have contacted your client with a Subject Access Request.
I would like to remind you that the Practice Direction states that you must comply with the Pre-Action Procedure before you start court proceedings. I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Alternatively, you may wish to end this matter by cancelling the Parking Charge Notice
FROM SCS LAW:
Thank you for your email in response to our Letter Before Claim dated 10 September 2019. I can also confirm receipt of your letter we received on 18 September 2019 and that I informed our client that you will be making a Subject Access Request to them.
I am currently taking my client's instructions in respect of your correspondence and will respond to you in due course.
I write further to my previous email. I am still currently taking instructions on this matter and will provide a substantive response in due course.
However, please be advised that my client has confirmed that they have not received a Subject Access Request from yourself.
Yours sincerely,
I write in response to your correspondence we received on 18 September 2019, in response to our Letter Before Claim dated 10 September 2019. Firstly, please be advised that I have received instructions to no longer pursue the parking charge notices dated 22 December 2018. The same has now been removed from the file and the sums outstanding remain at £630.00. Please see my client's following responses to your numbered queries.
1. Please see attached my client's contract of authorities to manage parking controls at both sites. Please note that the contracting parties are Lathams Yard Hackney Residents Management c/o Residential Management Group Ltd, and Asda Food Stores.
2. Please see above.
3. My client's claim is not for losses, but for sums owed as a result of contractual breaches.
4. Please see above.
5. Please see attached copies of the following:
1. Photographic evidence,
2. Copies of previous correspondence (including the notice to keeper letters and the parking charge notices);
3. Copies of the site maps of both locations; and
4. Copies of the relevant signage applicable to my client's claim.
6. My client is pursuing you as the keeper of the vehicle under paragraph 4, Schedule 4 to the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 ('The Act'). This is because my client is unaware of both the name and address of the driver, pursuant to paragraph 5(1), Schedule 4 of the Act. Please see attached copies of the parking charge notices, which makes numerous clear references to my client's identity and whom the sums are owed to, in compliance with the Act.
My client will not be providing a POPLA verification code, due to the time periods for appealing the charges previously expiring.
I trust this clarifies my client's position and I look forward to receiving your response within 30 days.
Yours sincerely,
I write further to my previous email. Please note that the parking charge notice in which I have received instructions to no longer pursue is that dated 10 May 2019. The aforementioned parking charge notice dated 22 December 2018, is still being pursued by my client and remains on the file. In turn, the sums owed remain at £630.00, as per my previous email.
I look forward to receiving your response within 30 days.
End of communication.
For what I understand, it appears they might have complied to my first request, unless I am missing something.
In the SAR I received, some of the details of the contract between Property Managers and UKPC are sanitized and not entirely visible. UKPC plaque not clear, not a contract in my opinion and not mentioning motorcycles.
I guess it is now my turn to reply by disputing all charges and building my defence.
This is the letter I have ready to go:
Dear SCS Law,
In response to your email dated 24/10/2019, I firmly dispute the legal basis of your claim and the charges.
The sum sought is not representative of any financial loss, therefore is a disguised penalty.
If alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).
If alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
If alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal).
Motorcycle permits are not existent (I have contacted the property managers as I am a tenant where 4 of the 5 charges were issued), no motorcycle bay present, an eventual contract would be unclear frustrated.
The signage is also insufficiently clear to form a contract in the first place.
Of the 5 tickets the claim list, one was cancelled; therefore, they all should be cancelled as they were issued for the same cause.
UKPC does not have proprietary interest in the car park, not sufficient for landowner authorization to enforce parking. They are exceeding their authority.
Regards,
any advice will be appreciated as I am not sure if anything could be added, removed or polished in preparation of my defense.
I have received a LBC from SCS Law, on behalf of UKPC, for about 5 parking charge notice for my scooter parked in private land.
One of the PCN was given in the parking lot of a shopping centre, the other 4 under my home.
At the shopping centre, in absence of motorcycle bay, I parked next to a car bay, away from pedestrian passage as I always do. Unfortunately, in July 2016 I found a UKPC notice on the scooter.
Similar story at my address, I have been living in this block of flats since 2014 as a private tenant. I don’t have access to a bay either in the garage or the parking lot and the all area is controlled by UKPC. There no motorcycle bays or permit available, I contacted the property managers to ask for it, and over the years I did like every other motorcycle do, park away from the car bays and away from pedestrian and car passage, without any issues. Usually motorcycle are allowed to park if it’s done sensibly, depending on council regulations when on the road.
In 2018 I started collecting a few UKPC notices. After a quick online search, I decided to ignore them. I am now appealing to a couple of recent ones.
I moved the bike around, thinking that maybe the spot was wrong, but I received pcn even inside the locked garage at the ground floor of the house. I have access to the garage like cyclist and bikers do. I have always parked away from marked car bays, and away from passage.
I still park inside the garage, the scooter is now covered and the tickets stopped.
I have requested a SAR from UKPC, and SCS LAW to comply with the code of practice.
They have replied to both request, and now I am planning to dispute the claim and prepare for a defence, but I am confused on the legal appealing points.
This is a summary of the legal correspondence between me and SCS Law:
From me:
Dear SCS Law,
I hereby acknowledge your Letter Before Claim dated 10/09/2019 and dispute all charges which I consider to be unlawful, exorbitant and punitive.
I believe that your claim is unclear and fails to comply with the Practice Direction.
I would ask you to present a compliant case, by providing further details:
1. List of full names and addresses details of the parties contracting with your client for the provision of car park management services.
2. List of full name and address details of the landowners, if different from 1 above.
3. An itemised breakdown of any losses you have incurred because of this parking event.
4. An itemised breakdown of any losses the party contracting with you and (if different) landowners have incurred as a result of this parking event.
5. List of the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely on in court.
6. An explanation as to how the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 making the keeper liable have been satisfied. I consider your Parking Charge Notice to be invalid on the grounds that it does not identify the creditor, contrary to paragraph 9 (2) (h) of Schedule 4.
You will appreciate it is necessary for the parties in any dispute to exhaust all other options before resorting to court proceedings. I therefore suggest that you issue me with a POPLA verification code to enable me to refer this matter for independent adjudication.
I have contacted your client with a Subject Access Request.
I would like to remind you that the Practice Direction states that you must comply with the Pre-Action Procedure before you start court proceedings. I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Alternatively, you may wish to end this matter by cancelling the Parking Charge Notice
FROM SCS LAW:
Thank you for your email in response to our Letter Before Claim dated 10 September 2019. I can also confirm receipt of your letter we received on 18 September 2019 and that I informed our client that you will be making a Subject Access Request to them.
I am currently taking my client's instructions in respect of your correspondence and will respond to you in due course.
I write further to my previous email. I am still currently taking instructions on this matter and will provide a substantive response in due course.
However, please be advised that my client has confirmed that they have not received a Subject Access Request from yourself.
Yours sincerely,
I write in response to your correspondence we received on 18 September 2019, in response to our Letter Before Claim dated 10 September 2019. Firstly, please be advised that I have received instructions to no longer pursue the parking charge notices dated 22 December 2018. The same has now been removed from the file and the sums outstanding remain at £630.00. Please see my client's following responses to your numbered queries.
1. Please see attached my client's contract of authorities to manage parking controls at both sites. Please note that the contracting parties are Lathams Yard Hackney Residents Management c/o Residential Management Group Ltd, and Asda Food Stores.
2. Please see above.
3. My client's claim is not for losses, but for sums owed as a result of contractual breaches.
4. Please see above.
5. Please see attached copies of the following:
1. Photographic evidence,
2. Copies of previous correspondence (including the notice to keeper letters and the parking charge notices);
3. Copies of the site maps of both locations; and
4. Copies of the relevant signage applicable to my client's claim.
6. My client is pursuing you as the keeper of the vehicle under paragraph 4, Schedule 4 to the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 ('The Act'). This is because my client is unaware of both the name and address of the driver, pursuant to paragraph 5(1), Schedule 4 of the Act. Please see attached copies of the parking charge notices, which makes numerous clear references to my client's identity and whom the sums are owed to, in compliance with the Act.
My client will not be providing a POPLA verification code, due to the time periods for appealing the charges previously expiring.
I trust this clarifies my client's position and I look forward to receiving your response within 30 days.
Yours sincerely,
I write further to my previous email. Please note that the parking charge notice in which I have received instructions to no longer pursue is that dated 10 May 2019. The aforementioned parking charge notice dated 22 December 2018, is still being pursued by my client and remains on the file. In turn, the sums owed remain at £630.00, as per my previous email.
I look forward to receiving your response within 30 days.
End of communication.
For what I understand, it appears they might have complied to my first request, unless I am missing something.
In the SAR I received, some of the details of the contract between Property Managers and UKPC are sanitized and not entirely visible. UKPC plaque not clear, not a contract in my opinion and not mentioning motorcycles.
I guess it is now my turn to reply by disputing all charges and building my defence.
This is the letter I have ready to go:
Dear SCS Law,
In response to your email dated 24/10/2019, I firmly dispute the legal basis of your claim and the charges.
The sum sought is not representative of any financial loss, therefore is a disguised penalty.
If alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).
If alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
If alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal).
Motorcycle permits are not existent (I have contacted the property managers as I am a tenant where 4 of the 5 charges were issued), no motorcycle bay present, an eventual contract would be unclear frustrated.
The signage is also insufficiently clear to form a contract in the first place.
Of the 5 tickets the claim list, one was cancelled; therefore, they all should be cancelled as they were issued for the same cause.
UKPC does not have proprietary interest in the car park, not sufficient for landowner authorization to enforce parking. They are exceeding their authority.
Regards,
any advice will be appreciated as I am not sure if anything could be added, removed or polished in preparation of my defense.
0
Comments
-
Good.I still park inside the garage, the scooter is now covered and the tickets stopped.
You have read some seriously OLD stuff, and need to stop talking about an old CEL case and the charges not being related to loss as that has NO LEGS due to the Beavis case in 2015, and the way to address a solicitor firm is 'Dear Sirs / yours faithfully':
Dear Sirs [STRIKE]SCS Law[/STRIKE],
re: UKPC inflated and meritless parking charges placed on a motorbike
In response to your email dated 24/10/2019, I firmly dispute the legal basis of your claim and the charges.
The sum sought is manifestly excessive and unsupported by the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, has no 'deterrent value' given the facts, and the sum of £160 per event is unrecoverable and not an understandable ingredient of a parking regime with proper legitimate interests. [STRIKE]not representative of any financial loss, therefore is a disguised penalty.[/STRIKE]
[STRIKE]of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).
If alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
If alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal).[/STRIKE]
Motorcycle permits are non-existent (I have contacted the property managers as I am a tenant where 4 of the 5 charges were issued), and with no motorcycle bay present, an eventual contract would be [STRIKE]unclear[/STRIKE] frustrated and void for impossibility.
The signage is also insufficiently clear to form a contract in the first place, only offers a parking licence to cars in bays showing a permit (not to others, and not to motorbikes) and in any case, your clients cannot lawfully charge £160 for any private parking event.
If alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of how your client has arrived at £160 per PCN.
Of the 5 tickets on the potential claim list, one was cancelled; therefore, they all should be cancelled as they were issued for the same cause. UKPC are in difficulty with this case due to various issues, including but not limited to the following:
UKPC does not have proprietary interest in the car park, [STRIKE]not sufficient for landowner authorization to enforce parking. They are exceeding their authority.[/STRIKE] and even if they produce a landowner contract regarding a permit scheme, that contract de facto cannot apply to motorbikes because the permit scheme does not extend to them.
Should your client proceed with their baseless claim, I will be filing a defence which deals with the meritless claim in detail. In evidence at the later stages, I will be including the two statute laws and one binding case law that defeated BW Legal's barrister in the application they lost at Southampton County Court on 11.11.19, a decision that will surely debar any future 'parking firm' claim in that circuit at least, from trying to add 'costs' that are indisputably already absorbed in the parking charge itself. Perhaps you would like the same result for SCS Law that has stung BW Legal, but in a different court circuit? I will be glad to oblige.
You/your clients may wish to seek informed legal advice regarding the issues they have.
[STRIKE]Regards,[/STRIKE]
yours faithfully,PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
UKPC are known fraudsters, read this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html
and this
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html
What does you lease/AST say about parking? Does it mention permits? Does it mention paying a parking parasite silly money if you do nor display one. If it is silent on the matter them your lease/AST has primacy and, if the are daft enough to take this to court they may get a bloody nose, read this
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/324523-ukpc-liable-for-trespass-success/
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]l[/FONT]You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
I like the fact you are asking SCSLaw questions they cannot answer
Maybe they don't know that BWLegal were stamped upon for adding fake amounts.
They should do though, they are part of the scam cartel0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Good.
You have read some seriously OLD stuff, and need to stop talking about an old CEL case and the charges not being related to loss as that has NO LEGS due to the Beavis case in 2015, and the way to address a solicitor firm is 'Dear Sirs / yours faithfully':
Thank you very much Coupon-mad, your help is gold!0 -
UKPC are known fraudsters, read this
What does you lease/AST say about parking? Does it mention permits? Does it mention paying a parking parasite silly money if you do nor display one. If it is silent on the matter them your lease/AST has primacy and, if the are daft enough to take this to court they may get a bloody nose, read this
Thanks for the links, I did ignore their pcn after a quick online search, now appealing to my last one, trying to clear them out as soon as possible.
I don't think the tenancy contract mentions anything about parking, it's a standard agency contract, but I will check.0 -
I’m wondering if someone can help. I have searched high and low for my exact case but can’t seem to find it. Apologies in advance if it exists. I am a resident at a block of flats that has a fob entry basement car park. Between myself and my flat mate we have the one parking spot, and whoever misses out on it has to park in an visitors parking spot.
On 4 occasions I have received tickets whilst being in the visitor spot and I’ve now recieved a ‘letter before claim’ from scs on behalf of ukpc for the sum of £640.
I’m wondering if there’s a template or if I have any leg to stand on at all based on the fact I was in a visitor spot.
Thanks in advance0 -
Yes, lots of help available on the NEWBIE sticky on front page of the forum. Read it and use the standard appeal, without revealing who was driving. However, I question why you were using a visitor spot without following the conditions pertaining to that spot(s). Technically, if you live there you are not a visitor. BTW, we don't use that awful comment about legs! If you need more help, please start your own thread.0
-
I have a permit, and it was on view and can even be seen on the pictures they have sent me, but it’s slid down the side so not completely visible. Still visible enough to see its a valid permit though.
I had a look on the newbie thread but couldn’t see the exact one relating to my issue.
Not entirely sure why the leg comment is an awful one but ok.
Thanks for the help.0 -
When you have started your own thread search the forum using keyword(s) have I got a leg to stand on and see how many people use it. What does it actually mean? Simpler to say, what is my best defence?Cooperman123 wrote: »Not entirely sure why the leg comment is an awful one but ok.
Thanks for the help.0 -
After my response, with your kind help, I finally received their stubborn reply and I am not sure on how to proceed.
Here is SCS Law reply:
I write in response to your email dated 21 November 2019. I have now received my client's instructions.
Please be advised that my client's legitimate interest lies in ensuring that motorists comply with the terms and conditions, as per their instructions to do so by the managing agent/landowner. The sums owed were provided for on the signage installed at the sites and therefore, were agreed to upon parking at both.
My client notes that there are no specific motorcycle parking bays at either site. However, motorcycles are required to be parked within normal parking bays. Furthermore, there are no specific motorcycle parking permits. Please be advised that the parking bays are designated to residents at the site and the requirement to display a permit is to evidence the same. The same parking permit was required to be displayed, as that of a car.
The terms and conditions displayed on the signage installed at both sites was capable of creating legally binding contracts. The terms and conditions allowed for vehicles to be parked at the sites, subject to the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions refer to 'vehicles', which includes motorcycles. In respect of the sums owed, the terms and conditions displayed at Leyton Mill Retail Park, stated that failure to comply with the terms and conditions, would result in a £90.00 parking charge. Then, if parking charges remain unpaid, an additional charge of £60.00 would apply, due to the matter being passed to my client's debt recovery agents. The signage installed at Lathams Yard provides the same, albeit the parking charge was for £100.00, rather than £90.00. Upon parking at the sites, these conditions were agreed to.
I trust this clarifies my client's position and explains the legal basis for my client's claim. In addition to the above, please see my client's contract of authorities previously provided, evidencing my client's authority to manage parking at both sites.
I look forward to receiving your response within 14 days.
I wonder if I should insist on previous points or wait for them to take action.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards