SCS Law & Smart Parking

KeithP wrote: »

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0xufins5sva3byp/Image%20%2812%29.jpg?dl=0

So it is not a Letter Before Claim you are responding to.

I definitely would not be admitting to even 'a small error' in any correspondence.
Leave out the sentence starting "Had your client checked...".

Not this time. The LBC was apparently the first letter received from them. This latest one is the third letter so far.
Thank you - I have removed that sentence as advised.

Lamilad wrote: »

This is not a court case (yet) - do not use words like "plead and "exhibit"

Thank you - Is claim instead of plead ok? "I claim substantial compliance with the contract. .....". I have replaced "exhibit" with "image" throughout.

If this is now OK I will get it in the post tomorrow. Thank you to everyone for their help and support :T

Good evening all. We have had another reply from SCS. This one contains high res photos of the signs in the car park. I can upload them all if you would like. It also contains a "transaction report with registrations" partially redacted.

dropbox.com/sh/1ffbwnxatgy3uez/AADNmsAERdoOeJc7Z3U22Ymla?dl=0

They don't appear to have answered my question - "please can you confirm how many tickets were sold to vehicles with similar registrations to my own, but for which there is no record of them entering or leaving the car park on the day/at the time in question?". They have instead sent the transaction report. I know this is incomplete because a Smart Parking employee has already admitted there was a ticket bought for a car registration that wasn't in the car park. It was very similar to our own. This report does not contain the similar registration number data.

I'd be interested to know how often the ticket machines and ANPR cameras are synchronised with each other and the date/time checked for accuracy. They have only provided data from the supposed time entering the car park until 11 minutes before the supposed leaving time. Any time discrepancies could hide a valid transaction.

The photos provided, although clear this time, aren't accompanied with a date and time stamp to show when they were taken. This to me doesn't prove anything. Signs go up and signs come down as proved by visiting the car park to see Matalan have replaced Smart Parking with another parking company who have erected their own signs.

On the 2nd page of their letter the first paragraph tries to justify the legitimate interest in controlling parking to ensure parking for Matalan customers however this is contradicted by another sign on display throughout the car park. This sign says "Have you paid & displayed? Refund for Matalan customers". It can be seen on google street maps.

Refunds for Matalan customers, therefore no refunds for non-Matalan customers, therefore customers and non-customers can use the car park. A true legitimate interest in ensuring parking was available for customers would mean parking for customers only right?

And they want a reply within 7 days this time. The timescales for replies seems to be decreasing. Are they allowed to do this?

I look forward to any suggestions on how to reply. Your help is always invaluable and greatly appreciated.

Many thanks