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
    • 61Posts
    • 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 4
    • Castle
    • By Castle 14th Apr 18, 12:56 PM
    • 1,715 Posts
    • 2,311 Thanks
    Castle
    Underneath the last redaction. It's a ropey copy, but from what I can see of it, suggests it's good enough.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Found it... thanks; also just noticed that the contract is actually signed by the Landowner's Agent!
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 14th Apr 18, 12:56 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    They have also sent me images of the signs which does say time limit of 3 hours but the actual signs displayed in car park is high and the small print terms and conditions is difficult to read

    Do you want me to upload the images from car park? or ones they have sent me as well? they are clear to read as they have printed them
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 14th Apr 18, 12:58 PM
    • 1,036 Posts
    • 1,999 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Post the actual signs that you can read.
    "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.
    • HuffandDoback
    • By HuffandDoback 14th Apr 18, 3:24 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    HuffandDoback
    They have also sent me images of the signs which does say time limit of 3 hours but the actual signs displayed in car park is high and the small print terms and conditions is difficult to read

    Do you want me to upload the images from car park? or ones they have sent me as well? they are clear to read as they have printed them
    Originally posted by Immy_007
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulmj2gbmtrvvpz8/POPLA%20Appeal%20Process.docx?dl=0
    UKPC have decided to not contest my appeal to POPLA at the same car park as you. This document has a number of images that may be useful to you Immy_007
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 16th Apr 18, 9:49 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulmj2gbmtrvvpz8/POPLA%20Appeal%20Process.docx?dl=0
    UKPC have decided to not contest my appeal to POPLA at the same car park as you. This document has a number of images that may be useful to you Immy_007
    Originally posted by HuffandDoback
    Hi ..i cannot access the link any chance you could send me by other means?
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 16th Apr 18, 9:54 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    so how would i respond back now?

    Coupon-Mad Beamerguy..anyone please
    • ellawaterfield
    • By ellawaterfield 16th Apr 18, 10:11 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ellawaterfield
    Please can someone help me!


    I received a parking note on my car, it wasn't from the council it was from Vehicle Control Services. I work in Leeds city centre and have a permit outside my work, but on a few occasions I've received this parking note which isn't a fine, but a note to say they believe I shouldn't be parking there?


    I've recently changed my address, and I received a letter from Debt recovery plus (DRP) saying I owe them 160 now. My log book address wasn't changed in time hence why the parking notifications have been sent to my previous address.


    They have said I can't appeal this anymore as it is with the debt recovery, the only option is to go to court. Please can someone help? Thanks
    • HuffandDoback
    • By HuffandDoback 16th Apr 18, 10:18 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    HuffandDoback
    Please can someone help me!


    I received a parking note on my car, it wasn't from the council it was from Vehicle Control Services. I work in Leeds city centre and have a permit outside my work, but on a few occasions I've received this parking note which isn't a fine, but a note to say they believe I shouldn't be parking there?


    I've recently changed my address, and I received a letter from Debt recovery plus (DRP) saying I owe them 160 now. My log book address wasn't changed in time hence why the parking notifications have been sent to my previous address.


    They have said I can't appeal this anymore as it is with the debt recovery, the only option is to go to court. Please can someone help? Thanks
    Originally posted by ellawaterfield

    Hi Ella

    Please start a new thread and change your username if that is your real name
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 19th Apr 18, 11:30 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    Huff and Doback thanks for the link..it is extremely useful

    All i want to know now is what grounds do i reply back with now after my letter to SCS?

    The signs is clearly not legal so there is definately a case here as above link provided by Huffand Doback was an appeal to POPLA and the ticket got cancelled and was successful

    They have provided me the contract but the date signed was 21/10/2013 and says valid for 36 months initial period so no evidence if the contract was renewed

    the second letter is dated 5th April so i have 30 days from then to respond back

    Any help on how to draft a reply letter would be greatly appreciated as soon as possible please
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 19th Apr 18, 2:28 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    So draft somehting and show us it.

    Dont expect people to draft it for you> YOU do the legework!

    The obvious content would be: all areas you still disagree on. So for example if they lost a POLA case on signage, at the same time or a little later, then clearly the signage WAS adjudged to be deficient... and so on.
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 19th Apr 18, 2:47 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    i did draft a letter initially which is posted on this thread earlier and the reply received from SCS..i will draft a letter and post on here
    • HuffandDoback
    • By HuffandDoback 19th Apr 18, 2:51 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    HuffandDoback
    Just to be clear POPLA did not rule in my favour, it did not get to that stage. I appealed to POPLA with the document I posted in post 64 then UKPC decided not to contest. The signage is poor but I doubt you can say it has already been adjudged to be poor based off my POPLA appeal.

    I received a letter from UKPC soon after that reads
    "...We appreciate the inconvenience this has caused you. It is not our intention to cause undue worry and frustration when enforcing our clients parking regulations.
    We have investigated the appeal based on the information you have submitted and confirm that in this instance the parking charge has been cancelled...." (if that is any use?)
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 23rd Apr 18, 10:52 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    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

    [B]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
    Last edited by Immy_007; 23-04-2018 at 11:28 AM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd Apr 18, 11:06 AM
    • 17,632 Posts
    • 27,892 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    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:
    The unwelcome and detrimental effect on my chronic pain condition can be shown by evidence from my GP, to have flared up as a result of your unreasonable and unwarranted demands
    I think you should explain in the first paragraph above that your chronic condition is 'pain', because on first reading I thought your chronic condition was 'stress and anxiety', until I read the paragraph at the end of your letter.

    I'm no expert on the legal side of things, but I think your letter is very good and puts them on notice.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 23rd Apr 18, 11:30 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd Apr 18, 11:40 AM
    • 17,632 Posts
    • 27,892 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    on four different dates

    22/12/16
    23/12/16
    12/01/17
    13/01/17

    whatever the intention was and purpose of stay does this affect their right to demand money? and also my right to defend?
    Originally posted by Immy_007
    Having just scanned the redacted contract with the landholder, the four dates fall outside of the contract period which was signed on 21/10/13 and was operative for 36 months. As there appears to be no renewal of the contract, then I'd say they have no authority to be issuing parking charges beyond 21/10/16.

    Others will advise at what point you build this in to dealing with them.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 23rd Apr 18, 12:07 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    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''.
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 23rd Apr 18, 12:09 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    Just to be clear POPLA did not rule in my favour, it did not get to that stage. I appealed to POPLA with the document I posted in post 64 then UKPC decided not to contest. The signage is poor but I doubt you can say it has already been adjudged to be poor based off my POPLA appeal.

    I received a letter from UKPC soon after that reads
    "...We appreciate the inconvenience this has caused you. It is not our intention to cause undue worry and frustration when enforcing our clients parking regulations.
    We have investigated the appeal based on the information you have submitted and confirm that in this instance the parking charge has been cancelled...." (if that is any use?)
    Originally posted by HuffandDoback
    Having just scanned the redacted contract with the landholder, the four dates fall outside of the contract period which was signed on 21/10/13 and was operative for 36 months. As there appears to be no renewal of the contract, then I'd say they have no authority to be issuing parking charges beyond 21/10/16.

    Others will advise at what point you build this in to dealing with them.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    So i will need to ask them that question too if they have renewed the contract and if so then provide copy..?
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 23rd Apr 18, 4:32 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    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?
    Last edited by Immy_007; 23-04-2018 at 4:34 PM.
    • Immy_007
    • By Immy_007 26th Apr 18, 9:58 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Immy_007
    Anyone with any suggestions please as i need to send the second reply off asap
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

1,285Posts Today

5,882Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin