LBC - UKPC/SCS Law

summertech

Hi All,

I recently received a LBC from SCS Law, acting on behalf of UKPC relating to 4x PCN's issued between Aug-Sept 2019. Each PCN is now for £160.00 - £100 fine and £60 costs.

I am a resident in a block of flats in which UKPC have supposedly been contracted to manage the car park, and all of the PCN's have been issued due to 'parking in a visitor's parking space without displaying valid permit'.

When we moved into the flat the estate agent notified us that I would be able to apply for a parking permit, but I wasn't made aware that this was only a visitor's permit. These permits are only valid for a week at a time, with a maximum of 2 week's worth of permits available per flat per month. All parking in the area outside the development is council controlled and for residents only.

I had moved house but hadn't updated my DVLA details and therefore did not receive any correspondence up until now when the LBC was forwarded on to my new address.

Our tenancy agreement doesn't cover parking in any form, and our landlord also doesn't think there is any mention of the spaces being controlled by an external company in her lease but I'm waiting for a full confirmation of this.

I issued a SAR request to UKPC as per the newbies thread and have received details pertaining to 5x PCNs - am I correct in thinking the PC would need to take me to court for all 5 at once and not 4 now and 1 at a later date?

The images are rubbish as you would expect - on 1 occasion the dashboard isn't visible in any of them! Additionally the PC have now been removed from service in the development due to multiple complaints from residents.

Is there any way for me to fight this or craft a defence which would stand up in court, given the facts above? Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks

Redx

In theory it's one court case for all of them

Post #2 of that Newbies thread allows you to craft a suitable defence , it's it's whole reason for existing , so that is when you fight , after an MCOL arrives from the CCBC in Northampton

Coupon-mad

Is there any way for me to fight this or craft a defence which would stand up in court, given the facts above?

Always, and I didn't even read your post in full. Didn't need to!

Each PCN is now for £160.00 - £100 fine and £60 costs

No, it isn't. These are not fines and they CANNOT recover £60 of it twice.

If you have a claim, what's the Issue Date on it (top right)?

summertech

Coupon-mad said:

Is there any way for me to fight this or craft a defence which would stand up in court, given the facts above?

Always, and I didn't even read your post in full. Didn't need to!

Each PCN is now for £160.00 - £100 fine and £60 costs

No, it isn't. These are not fines and they CANNOT recover £60 of it twice.

If you have a claim, what's the Issue Date on it (top right)?

Thanks for your response coupon-mad!

I posted after recieving a LBC, but I have now recieved a Claim form from SCS Law. I've drafted a defence as below and would really appreciate some help in tidying this up.

One thing I noted is that Debt Recovery Plus are still sending me letters asking for the debt to be paid directly to them, even after I have recieved a LBC and in turn a Claim from SCS Law - do you think this could help the case?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

CLAIM NO:

BETWEEN

UK PARKING CONTROL LTD

-and-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENCE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary

 

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. Each allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied.

 

2.       The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and the Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to service an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the un-evidenced allegations in the Particulars.

 

Background

 

3.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

 

4.       The Defendant is a resident and tenant at the location where the Parking Charge notices in question were issued.

 

5.       The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. It is denied any contract existed, or that the Defendant breached any contractual terms whether express, implied or by conduct.

 

6.       It is denied that any loss/damage has occurred to the Parking Company, and any debt is denied entirely.

 

7.       It is not admitted that the Claimant has any lawful or contractual authority to make contracts with residents of the location in question, or to bring legal proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

 

Authority to Park/Primacy of Contract

 

8.       The Tenancy Agreement of the Defendant contains no terms or clauses requiring tenants to display parking permits, or to pay penalties for non-display of a permit. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by Private Parking company signs unless the Tenant has agreed to a variation of the tenancy, which the Defendant has not.

 

9.       Previous cases have established the above points – in Link Parking vs J. Parkinson [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] the Judge ruled that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract.

 

10.   The Claimant relies on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, this case can only be used as precedent if the facts of the case are broadly the same. In the aforementioned, it was known that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas the Defendant’s position is that no such breach occurred in this case – no valid contract has been entered into. This case therefore can be distinguished from Beavis on the circumstances and facts.

 

11.   The parking spaces are contained within a gated complex, of which the Defendant possesses a key fob to enter – a type only issued to residents. Therefore, any vehicles parked within the complex are de facto authorised to be there.

 

12.   The Defendant’s tenancy agreement states the Tenant has the right to ‘quietly possess and enjoy the Property during the Agreement without any lawful interruption from the Landlord’ so long as the tenant complies with the terms of the Agreement and has proper respect for other tenants and neighbours. There are no restrictions on parking mentioned in the Agreement.

 

13.   The signage attempts to make a forbidding offer, which isn’t an offer – therefore no contract exists. As the Claimant’s notices state ‘no unauthorised parking’ there is no offer of a contract for supposedly unauthorised persons.

 

14.   The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation

 

15.   Since the issuing of the Parking Charge Notices the Claimant no longer operates on the land in question. Even if necessary authorisation was obtained at the time of issue, the claimant is put to strict proof that the authority remains to litigate within a development of which they have no interest.

 

 

 

16.   The Defendant avers that the operator’s signage cannot override the existing rights enjoyed by residents. It is denied that:

 

16.1           - there was any relevant contract between the Defendant and the Claimant.

16.2           – there was any relevant obligation to display a permit.

16.3           – the claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

 

Unreasonable and Vexatious Claim

 

17.   The defendant avers that there is no ‘legitimate interest’ in penalising bona fide residents for using parking spaces. In the eyes of the landowner, the parking company is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is contrary to the requirement of good faith for the company to penalise residents and their visitors for using the parking spaces provided.

 

18.   The presence of the Claimant on the land will have been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on the people whose interests the Claimant was there to uphold. Due to this, the Claimant and their Notices have been removed from the development by the Managing Agent.

 

19.   The Claimant has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge. No justification has been provided for this. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, at 4 (5) states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper. This is understood to be £100. It is stated that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant and should not be upheld by the court, even in the event that Judgement is awarded for the Claimant.

 

20.   Correspondence on behalf of the Claimant suggests that the additional £60 sums are owed due to costs incurred by the Claimant’s use of their ‘debt recovery agent’ (Debt Recovery Plus). This company operates on a No Win, No Fee basis and as the Defendant has made no payment no fee can have been incurred by the Claimant.

 

21.   The Defendant was issued with a Letter Before Claim by the Claimant’s Solicitor SCS Law which was in turn acknowledged, but the Defendant continues to be sent letters from Debt Recovery Plus after this implying that the amount should be paid directly to them. This is a further example of attempted double recovery and of the underhand tactics used by the parking company and their related agencies.

 

22.   The additional £60, plus solicitors costs brings the claim to £770 – almost double the value of the Parking Charges and a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the Judge will recognise this as unreasonable conduct and may use their power to strike the claim from the court’s own volition.

 

23.   According to Ladak v DCR Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity and not for the administration costs allegedly incurred by SCS Law in the preparation and issuing of robo-claims

 

24.   It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed only) that the Parking Charge includes a significant percentage of profit and more than covers the cost of sending automated template letters. It is known that debt collection agencies act on a no-win no-fee basis, therefore there can be no ‘damages’ to add onto the claim. The Defendant asks that the Court takes notice of this repeated abuse of consumer’s rights caused by parking firms artificially inflating their robo-claims.

 

25.   The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and voids liability to the Claimant for the full amount claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration for the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for the absence of a detailed cause of action and/or the claim having no reasonable prospect of success.

 

26.   Alternatively, the Court is invited, under the Judge’s own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of the Claimant’s interference with the easements, rights and primacy of contract of tenants at this site, in order to put an end to not just this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to cease wasting the court’s time by bringing residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that does not lawfully exist.

 

27.   The Defendant asks that if the Court is not minded to make such an order, there is an order for service of witness evidence rather than exchange. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars of Claim, it is expected that the Claimant will use the Witness Statement to provide details which should have been disclosed earlier in the claim. The Defendant should have the opportunity to consider the additional evidence prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

 

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

1505grandad

What is the issue date on the claim form.

summertech

Issue date on the claim form is 30th Jan, AoS was filed on 7th Feb.

I know I've left it rather late!

Thanks,

beamerguy

The question must be asked about SCSLaw ...... are they competent bringing cases with fake amounts added. Don't they understand what is happening in the courts ????

ABUSE OF PROCESS PART 1
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1?new=1

ABUSE OF PROCESS PART 2
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

D_P_Dance

Each PCN is now for £160.00 - £100 fine and £60 costs.

Compain about the unlawful additions to the SRA

https://www.sra.org.uk/

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

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.

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.

KeithP

summertech said:

Issue date on the claim form is 30th Jan, AoS was filed on 7th Feb.

I know I've left it rather late!

Thanks,

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 3rd March 2020 to file your Defence.

As you say, not long now, but still plenty of time to produce a Defence

To file a Defence, follow the guidance in this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595#Comment_76880595

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

summertech

KeithP said:

summertech said:

Issue date on the claim form is 30th Jan, AoS was filed on 7th Feb.

I know I've left it rather late!

Thanks,

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 3rd March 2020 to file your Defence.

As you say, not long now, but still plenty of time to produce a Defence

To file a Defence, follow the guidance in this post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595#Comment_76880595

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Thanks KeithP

I posted a draft defence in a response to coupon-mad a little further up the thread (posted at 1.39pm today), can you see this in the thread?