URGENT: UKPC & SCS Law

URGENT Reply requested please guys

To Summarise where we are up to

So upon your advice an initial letter was sent to SCS as below:
SCS Law
Level 34
25 Can ada Square
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5LQ

Your Ref:xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 5th February 2018
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 !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
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) !!!8211; 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

Now they have replied back with this letter and contract:

https://imgur.com/a/81BBnc6

https://imgur.com/a/4XSlvAQ

Letter dated 5th April so i need to reply robustly to this letter as soon as possible

i have seen the template from Newbies thread as follows:

DearSCS Lawl,

My letter was not a 'query'. Stop patronising me and acting like you are a customer service agent. You and your ilk are a serious threat to consumers in this country. Cease and desist - this is now unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family.

It is important that you now stop contacting me pretending you are wanting to 'help' discuss an ''affordable payment arrangement'' for a debt that does not exist. How dare you demand that I complete details of my income and expenditure, for a fake charge from a notorious ex-clamper, propped up by you, a shameful robo-claim legal firm who were named and shamed in Parliament last month.

Your letter gave away my complete lack of liability in these words:

''2. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the contravention.
3. Our Client does not intend to rely on The Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA"). Instructions were provided on the PCN on how to proceed if you were not the driver at the time the contravention occurred.
As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, Our Client, in the absence of the driver's details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you the recent Court of Appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.''

Good luck with that old chestnut. What - no Elliott v Loake? Forget them both.

Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability and has been debunked in dozens of Excel/VCS cases, as you well know. I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.

This continued contact and demands for money from a person who is not liable in law, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the constant bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.

I also suffer from stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse. A chronic condition likely to last more than 12 months means I have a protected characteristic as defined within the Equality Act 2010 (the EA), and you and your client are making it worse. Harassment of a person who meets the definition of disability under the EA is specifically illegal within the statute under section 26:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I repeat - you know I am not liable in law. Outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'.

Stop writing misleading letters. Stop writing any letters. Your client has no cause of action against me and must take it up with the driver, and should have done so in a timely manner, establishing on the day who that party was, if they felt there was a parking charge due.

Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.

If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. The unwelcome and detrimental effect on my stress and anxiety have flared up as a result of your unreasonable and unwarranted demands, and I will have no hesitation in seeking the full amount of damages the Judge sees fit to award.

I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:

- on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall (mirroring the conduct of BW Legal's robo-claim modus operandi) had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts.

Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.

I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients.

yours faithfully,

Please any suggestions and expert advice would be really helpful

One other post on my previuos tthread by Huffanddoback points out the poor signage and he won the case UKPC decided not to contest but that was POPLA appeal at the same car park so i have images from that too which i can add in to this letter

Also they have not replied to whether they are pursuing as a driver or keeper

Await to hear from you very soon

Thanks Umkomaas, i did take out the pain part upon reading another post from Coupon Mad as advised

i forgot to take the other part regarding the pain, i have edited that part to Stress and anxiety

Shall i add this too?

These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

So from the second reply letter..what points can i add or take out?

I am assuming the main points to consider is the signage and the contract renewal date?