SCS Law & Smart Parking

Thank you for your reply.

On this occasion the VRN was incorrectly entered due to the keyboard issue. With hindsight an alternative machine should have been used but the full consequences of this seemingly minor detail were not clear and incorrectly assumed that the payment made was enough. That won't happen again!

Just to clarify - the SCS Law letter (linked above) is in fact from DRP? Either way, if this is their attempt at an LBC then judging by the advice in the sticky threads I should reply in order to "not drop the LBCCC ball". Should I ignore it or reply? Does it matter that we've already been down the POPLA route or can I put that to one side and form a reply? e.g. post #7 by hitman126

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5735136&highlight=practice+direction

Another PPC has taken over the running of the car park in question and replaced the ticket machines with their own. I assume they've also replaced the signs to their own. This means I can't gather evidence myself.

Many thanks

Thank you for your quick replies. Your knowledge and support is invaluable. I have just read the suggested posts and I'm thinking I will use the following example in reply to this LBC. Please can it be confirmed I haven't included any part of it I shouldn't (as it relates to another set of circumstances) or that I haven't missed anything? Many thanks

Your Ref:xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2017.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form


If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

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.


Yours faithfully

Thanks to everyone for your help so far. I've removed point 11 from my draft above as SCS included this along with their original letter - "11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form". I shall post this off tomorrow and get a proof of postage unless anyone thinks I should change anything else?

I have also spoken with the Matalan store manager this week who was helpful in providing a bit more information. She said their head office had advised them to tell customers to ignore all tickets from Smart Parking as they will not take anyone to court. She was surprised when I told her about the letter from SCS. She kindly gave me a phone number for their head office switchboard (not the usual customer service number) and I was able to speak with their property manager (or something like that). He said they no longer have any communication with Smart Parking but he did have a way to contact them and would do so on our behalf. He asked for the PCN number, Matalan card number and bank statements or receipts to show we were customers. The car park isn't just for Matalan customers. They offer a discount to Matalan customers only. We have a Matalan card but haven't used it for years when shopping there but do regularly pop in to browse and make purchases with cash or card. I was able to show a recent visit and purchase using a bank statement sent to him via email. Fingers crossed for some good news there. Not sure if I should post his email address here but if anyone else was to follow the same steps I did then that should be OK.

Many thanks