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 QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

URGENT: UKPC & SCS Law

13468922

Comments

  • Scary perhaps. But stating the process of enforcement (whilst making clear how enforcement can be avoided) is not misleading.

    They are instructed to recover £160, fine, my beef is that they state that amount is contractual and I'm not convinced it is, because most signs refer to indemnification, not routine and fixed charges. But I've not seen the sign.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    edited 8 March 2018 at 9:03PM
    Johnersh wrote: »
    Scary perhaps. But stating the process of enforcement (whilst making clear how enforcement can be avoided) is not misleading.

    It's not just scary, it is a blatant attempt to extort money

    Bailiffs, attachment to earnings etc ...... before the event ??

    This rubbish makes the SRA look rubbish if they cannot
    control these rogues
  • Is it still URGENT?? OR has the boat sailed?
  • Immy_007
    Immy_007 Posts: 92 Forumite
    now SCS has replied back..i will post the letter on here shortly
  • Immy_007
    Immy_007 Posts: 92 Forumite
    edited 14 April 2018 at 10:47AM
    https://imgur.com/a/vUYUm

    https://imgur.com/a/RwzZm

    This is their response to the letter sent asking for the documents

    They have given 30 days to reply so what do i respond back with now?

    They have sent contract, site map and photos of vehicle entering and leaving
  • Castle
    Castle Posts: 4,156
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Immy_007 wrote: »
    https://imgur.com/a/vUYUm

    https://imgur.com/a/RwzZm

    This is their response to the letter sent asking for the documents

    They have given 30 days to reply so what do i respond back with now?

    They have sent contract, site map and photos of vehicle entering and leaving
    1) Looking at the "contract" it appears to run from 31st October 2013 for an initial period of 36 months... so there's no evidence that it was renewed in October 2016.

    2)There's no mention of UKPC having the power to take people to court

    3) And perhaps more importantly, the 3 hour time limit isn't listed as one of the restrictions. But the restrictions state that a valid parking permit must be displayed at all times.

    Is this the same car park?
  • Looking at the "contract" it appears to run from 31st October 2013 for an initial period of 36 months... so there's no evidence that it was renewed in October 2016
    I'd agree with that, but the fact that signs & equipment remain in place etc would allow the court to make a finding of fact that it continues to run, terminable on notice.
    There's no mention of UKPC having the power to take people to court
    It is hard to read, but this power is in the contract.
    And perhaps more importantly, the 3 hour time limit isn't listed as one of the restrictions. But the restrictions state that a valid parking permit must be displayed at all times
    This is the important one. As a matter of principle, it appears that they are seeking to enforce terms that they are not authorised to.

    I would also be arguing that example signs in light of this evidential issue are not good enough. They could be from anywhere...
    Is this the same car park?
    Well, quite.
  • Castle
    Castle Posts: 4,156
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Johnersh wrote: »
    I'd agree with that, but the fact that signs & equipment remain in place etc would allow the court to make a finding of fact that it continues to run, terminable on notice.

    It is hard to read, but this power is in the contract.
    Your eyesight is better than mine. :)
  • Underneath the last redaction. It's a ropey copy, but from what I can see of it, suggests it's good enough.
  • Castle
    Castle Posts: 4,156
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Johnersh wrote: »
    Underneath the last redaction. It's a ropey copy, but from what I can see of it, suggests it's good enough.
    Found it... thanks; also just noticed that the contract is actually signed by the Landowner's Agent!
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards