Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 1st Mar 18, 3:48 PM
    • 74Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Immy_007
    URGENT: UKPC & SCS Law
    • #1
    • 1st Mar 18, 3:48 PM
    URGENT: UKPC & SCS Law 1st Mar 18 at 3:48 PM
    URGENT Advise Required Please

    i am new to this thread and was advised to post a thread

    Received a parking fine from UKPC for overstaying over the 3 hours free permitted time limit and now after 2 years i have a letter from SCS Law demanding the fine.

    Please not: the keepr did not receive any correspondence until this letter received from SCS as wasn't aware the driver overstayed and got this now..so not have not appealed or anything like that as no opprtunity was given to me

    They have given me 30 days to reply otherwise they will issue court proceedings and i have only a few days left so the keeper can reply back either to pay fine, dispute or pay part

    what do i do ? on what grounds can i dispute this if i can??

    Any help and advice would be grateful..so i can send this letter before the deadline and gives me breathing space
    Last edited by Immy_007; 02-03-2018 at 3:29 PM.
Page 3
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 4th Mar 18, 10:44 PM
    • 74 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    https://imgur.com/a/5q5Og

    this is the letter from SCS Law
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 4th Mar 18, 10:45 PM
    • 74 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    Need to post this tomorrow fiirst class so is the letter above sufficent? anythig to add?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Mar 18, 12:42 AM
    • 61,591 Posts
    • 74,490 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes just send it and keep proof. And start reading lots of UKPC/SCS court defences, in readiness.

    Your link didn't work, we can't see it.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 8th Mar 18, 2:59 PM
    • 74 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    i posted the letter on Monday 6th March First class and kept proof of posting
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Mar 18, 2:59 PM
    • 9,252 Posts
    • 9,465 Thanks
    KeithP
    Your link still doesn't work.
    .
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 8th Mar 18, 5:28 PM
    • 74 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    https://imgur.com/a/8rjY3
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Mar 18, 7:06 PM
    • 8,451 Posts
    • 11,124 Thanks
    beamerguy
    There is no way you can accept being threatened
    with bailiffs, attachment to earnings, by these financial
    thugs ... IT'S NOT EVEN GONE TO COURT YET

    And then they talk about the Beavis case to try and scare
    you .... the fact is the Beavis case has no bearing
    whatsoever to do with you.

    From what I read from their letter, they have not tended
    an ounce of proof of their claim other to say you over
    stayed

    If that is how they think the new procedure works, its
    time for SCS to start doing their homework

    Nobody can accept this rubbish and that is why you
    MUST send copies of this letter to Sir Greg Knight who
    proposed the new private members parking bill

    https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200

    Nobody should put up with with such threats, they are
    highly misleading and menacing ????

    The SRA should be highly ashamed of SCS as they are
    not in the interests of the public

    These were the methods of the Kray Twins

    I understand why UKPC live in the sewers, as they are known
    scammers and fakers but for SCS to stoop so low gives a very
    bad name for real solicitors
    Last edited by beamerguy; 08-03-2018 at 7:19 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 8th Mar 18, 7:24 PM
    • 1,177 Posts
    • 2,233 Thanks
    Johnersh
    The acceptability of the SCS correspondence lies in whether there is use of the word MAY obtain judgment and MAY be able to take the following steps.

    If the letter states expressly or impliedly that any of those steps WILL happen, it is misleading as to the debt process and may be in breach of SRA guidance.
    http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/guidance/warning-notices/Debt-recovery-work-and-relationships-with-debt-recovery-businesses--Warning-notice.page

    I set out some of the SRA guidance in reply a wright hassall letter that was doing the rounds a little while back. WH appear to have subsequently changed that precedent Others have not
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Mar 18, 7:27 PM
    • 61,591 Posts
    • 74,490 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would say it does on the second page, imply that those steps WILL happen, because it says to avoid these steps, you must contact someone called Abdullah at UKPC and pay.

    To any reasonable interpretation, the two bullet points above that demand for money paragraph on page two, are the 'steps' that the letter says can only be avoided by paying UKPC.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 8th Mar 18, 7:37 PM
    • 1,177 Posts
    • 2,233 Thanks
    Johnersh
    @Coupon I failed to scroll down, it does qualify it - probably enough -

    It states IF judgment is secured AND IF you don't pay the judgment debt.

    Bet their sign doesn't say they'll charge 60 per referral to debt recovery though. Most don't. In which case the letter is misleading that way. And if it is a letter before action, I do hope they have provided all the documents they should have done (I suspect not)
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Mar 18, 8:24 PM
    • 8,451 Posts
    • 11,124 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Most don't. In which case the letter is misleading that way. And if it is a letter before action, I do hope they have provided all the documents they should have done (I suspect not)
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    It's not just misleading, it is menacing and threatening and
    what would be expected from back street loan sharks

    You are a solicitor, do you think the SRA was set up to
    protect a Kray Twins operation ????
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 8th Mar 18, 8:42 PM
    • 1,177 Posts
    • 2,233 Thanks
    Johnersh
    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.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Mar 18, 9:00 PM
    • 8,451 Posts
    • 11,124 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Scary perhaps. But stating the process of enforcement (whilst making clear how enforcement can be avoided) is not misleading.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    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
    Last edited by beamerguy; 08-03-2018 at 9:03 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 12th Mar 18, 10:13 AM
    • 1,013 Posts
    • 790 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    Is it still URGENT?? OR has the boat sailed?
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 14th Apr 18, 10:47 AM
    • 74 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    now SCS has replied back..i will post the letter on here shortly
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 14th Apr 18, 11:44 AM
    • 74 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    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
    Last edited by Immy_007; 14-04-2018 at 11:47 AM.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 14th Apr 18, 12:13 PM
    • 1,900 Posts
    • 2,576 Thanks
    Castle
    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
    Originally posted by Immy_007
    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?
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 14th Apr 18, 12:23 PM
    • 1,177 Posts
    • 2,233 Thanks
    Johnersh
    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.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 14th Apr 18, 12:35 PM
    • 1,900 Posts
    • 2,576 Thanks
    Castle
    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.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Your eyesight is better than mine.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 14th Apr 18, 12:43 PM
    • 1,177 Posts
    • 2,233 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Underneath the last redaction. It's a ropey copy, but from what I can see of it, suggests it's good enough.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

279Posts Today

4,012Users online

Martin's Twitter