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
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 12th Apr 18, 7:44 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Potatini
    SCS for parking with permit!
    • #1
    • 12th Apr 18, 7:44 PM
    SCS for parking with permit! 12th Apr 18 at 7:44 PM
    Hi Folks, first thing first - thank you for running this help section, who's being a life saver! This is my case. I hope you can help me through it and kick this "people" away for good!

    I received a total of 5 parking fines for being parked in the staff car park at the hospital where I work, despite I have a valid permit disc on the dash and daily scratched scratch card. Together with the parking permit disc, the staff parking area is accessible only by swiping a name badge, which I also own. I used the facilities within standard working hours, although my permit is valid for 24/7. Colleagues told me that they had the same issue and recommended to discard the notices, as "they'll stop writing" ... but I received a standard LBC from SCS Law instead! I've been naive, I know. At least I kept all the "ignored" threatening paperwork.

    The LBC (I can't attach a link) seemed to be complete with details of the fines and I think responds to the criteria given by the POFA. at least for what I can understand! I informed myself as much as I could, reading through similar cases on your forum, trying to understand what I could do to defend myself. I'm not very good in this, tho, but - I replied to their LBC as follows:

    Dear Sirs, I have received your Letter Before Claim dated 22 February 2018. As requested in your reply form, please receive a detailed reply hereby. I deny any debt to CP Plus Ltd. The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act, schedule 4 to pursue me as keeper.

    As the registered keeper of the vehicle I have not received a Notice to Keeper. As you can see, the law is unequivocal on this matter. A Notice to Keeper must be served where the driver has not been identified. Without this, the creditor does not have the right to recover the charge from the keeper of the vehicle. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the Private Parking Operator has failed to comply with the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Paragraph 4 of The Act states that: (1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if: (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met. The condition specified in paragraph 6 is “that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor): (a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or (b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9." Paragraph 9 states this notice to keeper must be given within a "period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given" It would be unreasonable of CP Plus to rely on the assumption that the Registered Keeper was the driver (as in Elliot v Loake) which I would like to highlight was a criminal case with ample evidence against the driver.

    Your Letter Before Claim refers to "a number of letters" sent to me by your Client - however I am now informing you that I was not in receipt of these items of correspondence and was therefore unable to act upon them at the time. Please provide copies of all documentation and correspondence, along with proof of dates of postage. When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass.

    Please confirm that your client's contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court. Whilst I await your timely response, I would also like to remind you of the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. "There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver.

    Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988“a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'' I would like to remind both CP Plus and SCS Law that a PCN with the basic non-statutory wording that your client freely chooses to use, can only hold the driver liable. Therefore, please kindly show me your client's evidence of whom the driver was at each occurrence. When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response.

    It would be unreasonable to proceed with litigation before you have clarified your client's cause of action.
    I've promptly received their reply, in which they said basically that they are claiming with me as a keeper, attaching their reasons and reiterate that if I don't pay £400, they'll take me to court with no further notice. However, there was no reply about who owns the land and what type of breech are they referring to, points that I'll surely reiterate in my next letter.

    Sadly, due to house moving and holidays, I missed the 14 days term to respond to their second letter I know another envelope from SCS has reached my previous address yesterday (maybe calling for court proceedings?) and this is now on my way. If it can be of any use, I could try to call again the hospital, who owns the parking grounds and ask for grace, but I doubt they'll intervene, as they previously stated they "can't do anything to help, once CP is in the way" (Is that true?) when I got in touch beforehand. In addition to that, I'm not employed by the hospital anymore, so I'll probably be ignored.

    I'll appeal to the all mighty forum, as this is going beyond my knowledge and all this reading is overwhelming! I'm writing my response, requesting once again proof of their the authority to take legal action and why am I receiving their correspondence, as the parking area can be accessed by an employee with a current swipe card only and there is a parking permit registered with the number plate of the "pirate car".

    Should I contest their affirmation that POPLA doesn't apply to my case and request a POPLA code? What else should I add? Can anyone help writing this letter in the most effective way, please? Thanks for your support!
    Last edited by Potatini; 15-04-2018 at 5:27 PM. Reason: Adjusting formatting
Page 2
    • Dhoney22002
    • By Dhoney22002 16th May 18, 4:33 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    Dhoney22002
    I received a total of 5 parking fines for being parked in the staff car park at the hospital where I work, despite I have a valid permit disc on the dash and daily scratched scratch card. Together with the parking permit disc, the staff parking area is accessible only by swiping a name badge, which I also own. I used the facilities within standard working hours, although my permit is valid for 24/7. Colleagues told me that they had the same issue and recommended to discard the notices, as "they'll stop writing" ... but I received a standard LBC from SCS Law instead! I've been naive, I know.
    Your case sounds so much like mine and my Trust except my Trust uses UKPC. Good luck with this. I am still in similar situation right now..... and Trust not very helpful.
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 16th May 18, 2:10 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Potatini
    Can they actually look reasonable?
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

196Posts Today

1,969Users 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