SCS Law want £600

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why not come off this tiny thread and look at the bigger picture on the forum?

Such letters are discussed to death every week and we repeat ourselves all the time. Only less than an hour ago I suggested some obvious questions for someone else to ask when they got a stupid pile of 'evidence' in a letter.

Every week, ad infinitum, we suggest how to reply to these letters, it's not difficult or legal, it's common sense anyone could do. Read some other threads.

Hi Coupon-mad, could you tell me which thread that was in which you posted the questions in? Thanks

Coupon-mad. I've just looked at a few threads and this is the only thing I could find to use as a response for myself. Please let me know if it'll be okay.



It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
there was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park furthermore In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
Accordingly it is denied that:
there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

The Claimant!!!8217;s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

I believe the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

This claim and the other very similar one merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.


It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.
Parking terms cannot be re-offered by a third party contractor on a day-to-day basis (on far more onerous and potentially, completely variable terms) because these were never incorporated into the permission to park as granted by the landowner, which was a stand-alone contract, concluded at the point in time of the provision of a permit which carried very few terms of use and no 'parking charges' nor 'indemnity costs'.

In the event that the court finds a contract based on signage can supersede the permit terms already agreed and the lease, I put the claimant to strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this claimant which enable these charges to be pursued in court by this contractor, for these alleged contravention(s), whatever they may be.

The alleged debt(s) as described in the two claims are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
I request the court strike out both claims xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill!!!8211; in the House of Commons at 12:43 pm on 2nd February 2018.
Sir Greg Knight
Motorists should have the certainty that when they enter a car park on private land, they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and involves a consistent process. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process, together with some motorists being hit with a fine for just driving in and out of a car park without stopping, have no place in 21st-century Britain.
Stephen Doughty Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth
I completely support the right hon. Gentleman!!!8217;s Bill., but I wonder if he will add to his list of unreasonable circumstances the repeated issuing of fines to individuals parking in their own parking space outside their property, which has affected me and many of the residents in the block where I live in Cardiff.
Gladstones Solicitors of Knutsford is involved in many such cases!!!8212;to be clear, I am talking about the firm in Knutsford; This week, I raised concerns about such firms with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and I am hopeful that it will take a close look at the matter and consider whether the firms are complying with the regulatory environment for solicitors, and with best practice.
Names highlighted in the debate include Premier Parking Solutions, Premier Park Ltd, Link Parking, New Generation Parking, UK Parking Control and ParkingEye,

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

I!!!8217;m confused - you!!!8217;ve copied and pasted a defence in, but you!!!8217;ve not even received a claim form?
Why are you sending them a defence?

I've received a pile of photo evidence letters consisting of proof of the 6 times the vehicle was parked in those bays.

I'm completely clueless as to what I should send next.

Coupon-mad mentioned I look at his recent posts and this was the only thing which i found that I thought was relatable to myself.

Please help guys.