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
    • Magnum0121
    • By Magnum0121 4th Apr 18, 12:56 PM
    • 36Posts
    • 12Thanks
    Magnum0121
    Multiple PCN "letter before claim persuant to the pre-action protocol for debt claims"
    • #1
    • 4th Apr 18, 12:56 PM
    Multiple PCN "letter before claim persuant to the pre-action protocol for debt claims" 4th Apr 18 at 12:56 PM
    I have received a "letter before claim persuant to the pre-action protocol for debt claims".
    Letter is from SCS law and the total claimed is over 1000 for 7 charges in 2015.
    I don't have any NTK letters or original charges.

    The alleged contravention is for "parking in a designated permit holder parking space without clearly displaying a valid permit".
    This contravention is false, as the car has never been parked in a designated space. The car was parked outside of any marked bay.

    Also, the parking company in question does not control the car park anymore, a different company now deals with the site in question.

    I have 30 days to respond and I have been given an "annex 1 information sheet" with multiple boxes such as "I agree i owe the debt, I owe some of the debt" etc.

    I have been provided with a telephone number and email address for the person at the parking company dealing with the case.
    Is it worthwhile contacting this person by email and asking for the photos of the alleged contraventions? As I am certain the alleged contravention is false as the car has never been parked in a permit only space.
    I can't even go back to the site and take photos of the signage because the company no longer controls the site.


    I am currently dealing with another PCN with a family member so I am familiar with the MCOL process etc as their case is being dealt with in the county court.
    For my family members case, I was given a template to send in response to the LBC regarding the pre action protocol (which the parking company ignored for several months and eventually rejected it).

    Thanks for any help
Page 1
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 4th Apr 18, 2:21 PM
    • 3,700 Posts
    • 4,523 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #2
    • 4th Apr 18, 2:21 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Apr 18, 2:21 PM
    No, long form repsonse from tne newbies thread. You DO NOT ask for "evidence". That word NEVER appears

    You state tyou require all documetns they intend to rely upon, including copies of PCNs such as NtD or NtK. You state you require a copy of the sgns in place, any photos (timestamped, natch) of the vehicle in situ, etc.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 4th Apr 18, 2:25 PM
    • 37,569 Posts
    • 84,504 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #3
    • 4th Apr 18, 2:25 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Apr 18, 2:25 PM
    Don't use any of their forms to reply. Questions may be couched in such a way that the answer may not be in your favour.

    Follow the LBC/court guide by bargepole from post 2 of the NEWBIES.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 04-04-2018 at 2:28 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 4th Apr 18, 4:20 PM
    • 9,845 Posts
    • 10,185 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 4th Apr 18, 4:20 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Apr 18, 4:20 PM
    Is this LBC related to any of the incidents mentioned in your other three threads?
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Apr 18, 4:29 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 4th Apr 18, 4:29 PM
    • #5
    • 4th Apr 18, 4:29 PM
    Same as all the other LBC threads. You do not have to use the reply forms, never mind what some odd posters might have said in the past. Loads of examples of how to reply to SCS - why not search the forum for Dear SCS as keywords?

    Please ask Crabman or soolin to merge your threads; we will all stop replying until they are merged.

    NO NEW THREADS PLEASE.
    • Magnum0121
    • By Magnum0121 4th Apr 18, 4:48 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Magnum0121
    • #6
    • 4th Apr 18, 4:48 PM
    • #6
    • 4th Apr 18, 4:48 PM
    Coupon mad, this is a completely new case and involves a different person altogether. Different parking company, different defendant
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 4th Apr 18, 5:36 PM
    • 10,239 Posts
    • 10,134 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #7
    • 4th Apr 18, 5:36 PM
    • #7
    • 4th Apr 18, 5:36 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Magnum0121
    • By Magnum0121 4th Apr 18, 6:31 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Magnum0121
    • #8
    • 4th Apr 18, 6:31 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Apr 18, 6:31 PM
    I will send an email to the name and email address of the person working for the parking company that they've provided.

    "Dear xxxx,
    I am writing in relation to the following parking charges:
    (List the numbers for all seven charges)
    Please provide me with all the documents you intend to rely on, including the notice to keeper and photographs of the vehicle in situ during the alleged contraventions"

    I'll give them 24 hours to respond then I'll make a phone call as I've also been provided with a phone number.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Apr 18, 6:57 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 4th Apr 18, 6:57 PM
    • #9
    • 4th Apr 18, 6:57 PM
    Coupon mad, this is a completely new case and involves a different person altogether. Different parking company, different defendant
    Originally posted by Magnum0121
    Ah OK, sorry - I take it back that threads should be merged!

    Personally I suggest a far more robust 'Dear SCS' letter as per all the ones written recently.

    If it helps, I've written some myself which you can find by searching for posts by me that include 'yours faithfully'.

    NO PHONE CALL, EVER.
    • Magnum0121
    • By Magnum0121 5th Apr 18, 12:40 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Magnum0121
    Thanks, I searched your forum name and found the following thread:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5640952&highlight=yours+faithfull y&page=2#topofpage

    You've adjusted the posters letter on the second page.
    Their case seems similar enough to mine for me to have a good look at the letter and make small adjustments?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 5th Apr 18, 2:49 PM
    • 3,700 Posts
    • 4,523 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Yep, then post here

    Never ever ever call. Ever.
    • Magnum0121
    • By Magnum0121 9th Apr 18, 11:27 AM
    • 36 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Magnum0121
    First LBC response draft. Thanks to Coupon-mad for an excellent starting point in another thread.


    Dear Sirs,

    Re: UK Parking Control Ltd

    References
    XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

    I note your letter before claim dated XXXXXX, received XXXXXX.

    I deny that I owe any debt to your client, UK Parking Control Ltd.

    I intend to defend any claim and I invite you to advise your client to withdraw at this early stage, before costs are incurred in defending a claim against me as registered keeper. I believe any claim by UK Parking Control LTD is baseless and misconceived and is bound to fail.

    Due to local knowledge and having inspected the signs at the location at the time of the alleged contravention, I am aware the signage forbade parking. Forbidding signage does not create a contract, therefore there is no breach of contract and the Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis mentioned in your letter is not relevant to this particular claim.

    Further, your client has adduced no evidence whatsoever as to the identities of the drivers at the material times. There was, of course, no requirement in law for me to respond to the NTKs in question, so any suggestion of failure on my part will be robustly defended. Indeed I view the continued - increasingly threatening - demands as harassment. Had UK Parking Control Ltd evidenced the driver(s) in their NTKs, I would have passed the purported 'PCNs' to those drivers, since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law. This position is entirely due to the choice of your client when drawing up a Notice to Keeper (NTK) document which does not in any way attempt to use nor rely upon the rights they might otherwise have been able to claim, under the Protection of Freedoms Act (the POFA) Schedule 4.

    You have listed separate 'parking charge notices' in which the facts seem to be fairly identical but all of the NTKs are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on each or any occasion.

    In addition, PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no reasonable presumption; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA Annual Report 2015). All AOS members with the British Parking Association (including your client) adhere to POPLA requirements and have been furnished with copies of all POPLA Annual Reports to date so there is no lawful excuse for proceeding against a registered keeper when an operator chooses not to use the POFA.

    In each demand, your client has added in costs/administrative charges which are not defined in any contractual document. It is my belief that your client's additional costs are arbitrary and unsubstantiated and are an attempt at double recovery, which cannot be supported on the small claims track. Should your client attempt to rely upon another commonly trotted-out case in these baseless robo-claims for parking operators, namely Chaplair Ltd vs Kumari [2015] this can easily be distinguished from this matter, since that was an irrelevant decision about contractual fees set in lease terms, not 'costs' fabricated by a parking firm who already make a significant profit from paid 'PCNs' as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], where I would remind you that the parking firm were only entitled to claim for the 85 charge itself. This sum was held to be more than sufficient to cover the very minimal cost of operating a generic ANPR camera 'enforcement regime' with a few template letters generated automatically.

    Since the POFA also states that the only sum that can be claimed from a registered keeper (subject to full compliance with Schedule 4) is the sum stated on the NTK itself - not allowing double recovery - it is clear that it is neither within the intentions of Parliament, nor was it held by the Supreme Court, that any parking firm can add further costs dressed up as 'damages' or loss, over and above the artificially high/already inflated parking charge sum itself.

    If your client will not withdraw, then I ask for your response to the matters above and for the following documents:

    i. The contract (or chain of contracts) between your client and the site landowner - not a site agent or other non-landholder - giving your client authority to carry out parking management and on what terms;

    ii. Any and all photographs taken of my car on the material dates;

    iii. A copy of any document your client asserts sets out the terms of the alleged contract between it and a driver (this may be the same as iv below);

    iv. A copy of the signs on display and a dated plan of where in the car park they were displayed on those dates;

    v. A map showing the boundary within the site, purportedly operated by UK Parking Control Ltd.

    These are core documents, central to your clients claim. As such, they are documents which are required to have been produced at an early stage (regardless of whether or not I asked for them) in this pre-action phase, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct. I would have expected at the very least, that the contract requested under iii above should have been appended to the Letter Before Claim. I am requesting these documents because I clearly require them in order to be able to prepare a proper defence to any Claim and/or a meaningful POPLA appeal, as is my entitlement. The CPR clearly anticipate an early exchange of information, as per paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct, Rule 16 and Practice Direction 16 any failure to produce the information I have asked for will be nothing other than a deliberate attempt to frustrate my ability to defend the claim and a failure to comply with pre-action obligations.

    Any failure by you/your client, to enter into meaningful dialogue in order to avoid unnecessary litigation will mean that you will have denied me the opportunity to take stock pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction, or to enter into discussions with you pursuant to paragraph 13. I will seek the sanctions provided for by paragraph 15 of the Practice Direction.

    It is noted that you have stated inexplicably, that you do not consider that this matter is suitable for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). However, I disagree. Not only is ADR a requirement at this stage under the pre-action protocol but I also wish to draw your attention to the EU ADR Directive of 21 May 2013 and The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015.

    Private parking tickets issued by AOS members are always suited to the ADR of an independent appeals service, which exists for this exact purpose. As Britannia Parking Group Ltd is a member of British Parking Association, should your client refuse to withdraw I hereby make the reasonable request that this dispute is resolved out of court by of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) and to minimise costs, the claimant should issue one POPLA code for one of the Parking Charge Notices and agree to place the other disputed charges on hold whilst this process is completed.

    I would remind you that POPLA is very clearly a reasonable resolution out of court and since on your website you state that: 'the solicitors at SCS Law have vast experience of civil litigation, debt recovery and enforcement, which provides {...} a highly specialised and expert service' it should not even be remotely necessary for me to have to draw your attention to the overriding objective within the Civil Procedure Rules, enabling parties to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, saving expense for both sides in resolving a dispute. I protest at your suggestion that you can deny me my right to ADR. POPLA codes can be issued at any time, not just in the first 28 day arbitrary deadline (imposed in the interests of parking operators only, creating a significant imbalance in the rights of consumers). It may interest you to know that POPLA codes have been produced by parking operators many months/years after parking events, by order of the Courts and if your client refuses to withdraw I am formally asking for a POPLA code now and will make the same reasonable request of the CCBC when serving my Directions Questionnaire in due course.

    Should your client deny my right to ADR and proceed despite being unable to invoke 'keeper liability' in law, I will consider the action to be indicative of wholly unreasonable and vexatious conduct in litigation. I will draw to the courts attention to the issues, will claim my costs and will cite unreasonable conduct pursuant to Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    Finally, since there is clear evidence that this proposed claim has no prospects of success and if pursued, will have been wrongly brought, I am advised that your client has breached the terms of the Data Protection Act by misusing my data to mislead me about liability.

    Your client has accessed my keeper details from the DVLA on more than one occasion and despite having no information as to the driver on each occasion, it continued under an unreasonable and unlawful assumption to pursue me instead, when it had no right to do so. Whilst obtaining DVLA data to enquire who was driving is allowed under the KADOE rules, that data must not be further used for any purpose outside the basis upon which it was provided by the DVLA. Your client has stepped outside the DVLA provision of my data by continuing to cause me significant distress by harassing me, the registered keeper. There can be no doubt whatsoever that a Letter before Claim sent blindly to a person with no legal liability is likely to cause enormous distress and I confirm that this is the case.

    I require you and your client to cease and desist. To be clear, I decline any invitation to name the driver and this is my lawful right. There the matter must end, because UK Parking Control Ltd have no lawful excuse to use my DVLA data beyond the very basic cause, of enquiring as to the driver's identity. A line must now be drawn under this exchange.

    Should this matter proceed then I put you on notice that I will make a counterclaim for damages in respect of such Data Protection Act (DPA) breaches, in respect of each and every individual PCN/DVLA data request. I understand that there is case law which supports a damages award of 750 for each breach (so a total of 6,000 in this case as a counterclaim). I believe I am entitled to claim an award of aggravated damages because your client must have been aware of the provisions of, and its duties pursuant to, the DPA and the limitations as to the use of the data they extracted under the KADOE. They are indisputably aware that they were operating a business model which gives them no rights whatsoever to claim against a registered keeper and I require them to withdraw immediately.

    I expect a substantive response with the documents and POPLA code (or confirmation of cancellation of all PCNs) within 14 days of this letter.

    yours faithfully,
    • Castle
    • By Castle 9th Apr 18, 1:24 PM
    • 1,923 Posts
    • 2,611 Thanks
    Castle

    Private parking tickets issued by AOS members are always suited to the ADR of an independent appeals service, which exists for this exact purpose. As Britannia Parking Group Ltd is a member of British Parking Association, should your client refuse to withdraw I hereby make the reasonable request that this dispute is resolved out of court by of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) and to minimise costs, the claimant should issue one POPLA code for one of the Parking Charge Notices and agree to place the other disputed charges on hold whilst this process is completed.
    Originally posted by Magnum0121
    Any reason for the Britannia Parking reference?
    • Magnum0121
    • By Magnum0121 9th Apr 18, 1:39 PM
    • 36 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Magnum0121
    Apologies I forgot to edit that out of the original
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 8:52 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,669 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law. This position is entirely due to the choice of your client when drawing up a Notice to Keeper (NTK) document which does not in any way attempt to use nor rely upon the rights they might otherwise have been able to claim, under the Protection of Freedoms Act (the POFA) Schedule 4.
    You have listed separate 'parking charge notices' in which the facts seem to be fairly identical but all of the NTKs are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on each or any occasion.

    In addition, PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no reasonable presumption; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA Annual Report 2015). All AOS members with the British Parking Association (including your client) adhere to POPLA requirements and have been furnished with copies of all POPLA Annual Reports to date so there is no lawful excuse for proceeding against a registered keeper when an operator chooses not to use the POFA.
    Finally, since there is clear evidence that this proposed claim has no prospects of success and if pursued, will have been wrongly brought, I am advised that your client has breached the terms of the Data Protection Act by misusing my data to mislead me about liability.

    Your client has accessed my keeper details from the DVLA on more than one occasion and despite having no information as to the driver on each occasion, it continued under an unreasonable and unlawful assumption to pursue me instead, when it had no right to do so. Whilst obtaining DVLA data to enquire who was driving is allowed under the KADOE rules, that data must not be further used for any purpose outside the basis upon which it was provided by the DVLA. Your client has stepped outside the DVLA provision of my data by continuing to cause me significant distress by harassing me, the registered keeper. There can be no doubt whatsoever that a Letter before Claim sent blindly to a person with no legal liability is likely to cause enormous distress and I confirm that this is the case.

    I require you and your client to cease and desist. To be clear, I decline any invitation to name the driver and this is my lawful right. There the matter must end, because UK Parking Control Ltd have no lawful excuse to use my DVLA data beyond the very basic cause, of enquiring as to the driver's identity. A line must now be drawn under this exchange.

    Should this matter proceed then I put you on notice that I will make a counterclaim for damages in respect of such Data Protection Act (DPA) breaches, in respect of each and every individual PCN/DVLA data request. I understand that there is case law which supports a damages award of 750 for each breach (so a total of 6,000 in this case as a counterclaim). I believe I am entitled to claim an award of aggravated damages because your client must have been aware of the provisions of, and its duties pursuant to, the DPA and the limitations as to the use of the data they extracted under the KADOE. They are indisputably aware that they were operating a business model which gives them no rights whatsoever to claim against a registered keeper and I require them to withdraw immediately.
    I would not have any of the above, at all.

    UKPC are not a company who do not rely upon the POFA. And there isn't any obvious scope to threaten a counter-claim or rant about misuse of DVLA data, because they can hold the keeper liable.

    You are best just to ask for all evidence and photos of the car & signs and all copies of the PCNs and all NTKs, and state that the registered keeper had primacy of contract at this residential site, and that the very fact that UKPC had their contract ended shows that the operation was considered predatory, having been removed by a Managing Agent who was unhappy with the aggressive ticketing of residents and multiple complaints from the very people to whom UKPC pretended to be offering a service. As such, any 'legitimate interest' that UKPC might try to paint, disappears in a puff of smoke, leaving their charges isolated as penalties, fully distinguished from the Beavis case and unrecoverable due to the penalty rule remaining firmly engaged in this case.

    Also mention this:
    The alleged contravention is for "parking in a designated permit holder parking space without clearly displaying a valid permit". This contravention is false, as the car has never been parked in a designated space.
    But don't tip them off as to where the car was really parked.
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

207Posts Today

1,346Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @GillsSarah: Interesting! I always used to buy big name products cos I thought they?d be stronger. @MartinSLewis has changed my mind on?

  • RT @think_jessica: Think Jessica the Film 30 min doc/drama based on my mother?s true story. Narrated by @MartinSLewis is now live on https:?

  • RT @kelsher123: @MartinSLewis First time switcher! And no, it wasn?t as challenging as I thought???? A British Gas customer so no brainier. Th?

  • Follow Martin