Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


hitman126

Highview Parking Ltd - SCS Law Letter Received Today

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 745 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

 

I have today received a letter from SCS Law who claim they've been instructed by Highview Parking Limited to recover an alleged penalty charge notice incurred by myself/my vehicle.

 

Incensed by the content of this letter,

I sought to establish what the address of the alleged contravention was supposed to have taken place

it turns out to be my local gym where I've been a member for nearly 20 years and as such a legitimate user of their car park.

 

I initially contacted Highview Parking to enquire about the reason for the letter and/or alleged contravention

was advised by a lady to write to their Appeals Team who're based in Barnet.

 

A second call to SCS Law drew a complete blank as the gentleman on the line advised that the firm had not been given any details on the alleged offence and had only been instructed by Highview to send out to me an initial notification letter.

 

Now, knowing how some of these cases can be won and lost through technicalities and not wanting to allow my heated emotions overrule any logical thinking on my part, I'd be grateful for any advice on how I should proceed with this please, e.g. how and who to contact, my line of argument, etc.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry you need to read the letter properly

it doesn't say penalty charge notice

and it doesn't say WILL anything.

 

and where do we say ever ring fleecing DCA's or their fake/tame solicitors??

 

 

please complete this:

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback @dx100uk.

 

Followed the link you provided and can confirm this particular case falls under the one titled

- "For PNC's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]"

 

Now, there's no record of receiving any Notice To Keeper letter(s) and even if any was sent, it is definitely not currently available.

 

The alleged incident is saidto have occurred at the start of March this year and one fact is that I was also abroad for 3 months from the end of April till end of July.

 

As there's currently no NTK to refer to at this point in time,

 

I cannot also ascertain any of the following:

 

1. The date on the NTK [including if received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]

 

2. Date received

 

3. Whether the NTK mentions schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?

 

4. If there's any photographic evidence of the event?

 

With this in mind, how can one proceed please?

 

For example, should I be requesting for copies of the NTK for starters?

 

Should I submit an appeal and if so to whom?

To date, no appeal has been made yet to the parking company,

 

SCS Law or the debt recovery company.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s the gym’s car park?

 

Talk to them in the first instance and point out that you are a customer of twenty years and feel disappointed that the legitimate use of their car park has resulted in this letter. Suggest it must be some kind of mistake and ask them to contact the parking enforcer with instructions to cancel. If possible, agree to have this arrangement confirmed in writing, perhaps with a follow up email...

 

Then come back and tell us how you got on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCS law are acting as dca's and as such their letters have no more clout than the local Pizza delivery co flyers you get almost on a weekly basis.

 

Now,

keep off the phone and post up the letter you have so we can comment.

 

It is most likely that a short letter to SCS will be enough to cease further action.

Taking the matter up with the gym may prove fruitful but often they are piggy in the middle as they dont own the land and dont like the parking co's either as they do nothng but damage their business.

 

however, they can take that up with the landowner and that will have more clot than you writing to landlord to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the absence of any positive response or assistance from the gym, what would be the next best course of action to take on my part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post up the letter as requested PDF please read upload


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have your received any communication about this before the threatogram from SCS?

 

A lack of previous correspondenec following the protocols of the POFA will damage thier chances of a successful claim and if they use the usual suspects as far as solicitors go to progress a court claim then they wont follow the Civil Procedure rules and under new guidelines lose nayway as soon as this is pointed out.

 

Highview are one of those companies that gets things wrong so badly they dont even try to get them right any more, you should also contact the DVLA and find out who accessed your keeper details and WHEN.

 

The timings of this may well further damage nay chance of a claim against you and you will be able to make a complaint to the DVLA about them allowing a bunch of crooks access to your data. The DVLA will be all defensive about this but a copy of the correspondence to your MP when you have the answers will boost the groundswell of opinion in parliamant about the DVLA's shamful management of the KADOE system

Edited by honeybee13
Paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, also now uploaded is a copy of the letter received from SCS Law as requested.

scs_law_letter_pg002a.jpeg

scs_law_letter_pg001a.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“May issue a claim”

“May result in a judgment against you”

“If a judgment is made against you”

 

Well, I could issue a claim against you (if I knew your name & address!).

It MIGHT result in a judgment against you. (Unlikely, as I don’t have a valid ‘cause of action’!)

Would you like to send me my £100 now???

 

Ignore the fleecers, or send one (well-crafted) letter explaining why they can “do one”!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amount they say you owe is £149.99, was that the sum written on the sign? If so then this letter is actually damaging to their cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s the gym’s car park?

 

Talk to them in the first instance and point out that you are a customer of twenty years and feel disappointed that the legitimate use of their car park has resulted in this letter. Suggest it must be some kind of mistake and ask them to contact the parking enforcer with instructions to cancel. If possible, agree to have this arrangement confirmed in writing, perhaps with a follow up email...

 

Then come back and tell us how you got on.

 

 

 

 

Well, so this is the current state of affairs.

 

I contacted the gym to request for the ticket to be cancelled as advised and received a call back.

 

If I have to be honest, I'm not entirely sure who's probably annoyed me more - Highview Parking Ltd, or the

rather obnoxious gentleman from the gym who contacted me. He was rude, unhelpful and even had the

temerity to insist that I had no option than to pay the fine and that based on past experience, no amount

of intervention from the gym would change the outcome.

 

As a result, I believe I can well and truly now forget about wasting any more time seeking any assistance

from the gym, take the bull by the horns and directly challenge SCS Law and/or Highview Parking.

 

What do we therefore do next kind friends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe so, but as I was away for a few months, I believe it/they got binned. Let's just assume therefore that I did receive an NTK but no longer have it.

 

All,

Drafted the below letter which I plan to send to SCS Law and Debt Recovery Plus. I'm therefore desperately in need of some kind, expert review and some feedback please.

As I have no NTK letter(s), I'm particularly unsure whether it's worth stating this in the letter below and requesting for a copy/copies.

Thank you

--------------------------- LBCC Response Letter ------------------

Dear Sirs,

Re: Debt owed to Highview Parking Ltd - Reference xxxxxx

Thank you for your letter of DD-MM-2017.

 

As registered keeper of the vehicle, this is a formal response to challenge the Parking Charge Notice in question, on the basis of the key points outlined below.

You letter fails to:

  1. Supply any photographic evidence, nor even the 'contract' (in this case presumably a sign).

  2. Set out clearly, the basis upon which you are attempting to hold me liable, with the charge disingenuously described in your letter as your ‘debt’.

  3. State what the cause of action is, nor contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.

This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar).

As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds 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.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction.

I therefore 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 car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed).
  5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim.
  6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver.
  7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed.
  8. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed).
  9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6© of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

 

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) – 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 © and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information, yet been denied it by your client.

 

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information within 14 days from the date of this letter, 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.

Otherwise, I expect to hear from you within 14 days, confirming that the charge is cancelled.

 

Yours faithfully,

[Name and Address of Vehicle Keeper]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

forget it, they wont read it . Read up on dca's and you will know why you are wasting your time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, well.......this case developed further when a few days ago I received the below email, on the

back of the letter I wrote to DPR in response to their demand letter. Would be grateful for any helpful

feedback on how to treat this. I have truncated and/or stripped out bits of it to ensure anonymity.

 

 

Start of Email

 

PS: By the way, the parking company involved in this case have now been replaced at the car park

in question by a new parking company.

 

 

Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The time to challenge

these charges has now expired and therefore access to the Independent Appeals Service (if applicable)

is no longer available.

 

However, in order to resolve this matter, I will offer the following comments as to why these PCNs were

correctly issued and are still payable.

 

My findings

The sites in question are subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout

the area. Those signs state that there is a time limit at the site.

 

On the dates in question the vehicle was parked for longer than the time stated and a PCN was

correctly and legitimately issued as a result.Please be advised, there are currently seven

outstanding Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) under the vehicle registration.

 

The claim in question is based in contract law. When you parked your vehicle on the site in question,

you contractually agreed to abide by the terms and conditions attached to that site. As stated, these

terms and conditions are adequately displayed on signage at the site. If you did not wish to abide by

these terms and conditions, you were under no obligation to park on the property in question.

 

I draw your attention to the decision made by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015].

The Supreme Court ruled that the charge appealed did not contravene the penalty rule or the

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and was therefore enforceable.

 

The charge in that case was ruled not to be a penalty as both ParkingEye and the landowners had a

legitimate interest in charging motorists who contravene parking restrictions, which extended beyond

the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management

of parking. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of

a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable,

having regard to the practices around the United Kingdom and taking into account the use of the

particular car park and the clear wording of the signs.

 

Please see this link for a summary of the Judgment:

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf

The signage on site is sufficient and is in line with the guidelines laid down by the British Parking

Association (BPA).

 

The majority of motorists who park at the site do so without receiving a PCN. This is undoubtedly

due to the fact that they are aware of the terms and conditions of the site. If, as you claim,

the signage was inadequate, the terms and conditions of the site would be unknown to the majority

of drivers and many more PCNs would be issued here.

 

If you refer to the British Parking Association’s code of practice, you will discover that the sum

in question is within what this body deems reasonable.

 

I also draw your attention to the decision made by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015].

The Supreme Court ruled that the charge appealed did not contravene the penalty rule or the Unfair

Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and was therefore enforceable.

 

The charge in that case was ruled not to be a penalty as both ParkingEye and the landowners had a

legitimate interest in charging motorists who contravene parking restrictions, which extended beyond

the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management

of parking. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of

a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable,

having regard to the practices around the United Kingdom and taking into account the use of the

particular car park and the clear wording of the signs.

 

Please see this link for a summary of the Judgment:

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf

 

I must also stress that simply sending in standard template responses, most likely obtained from the

internet, will not resolve the matter. In addition, I would recommend that professional legal advice

be sought on this matter as an alternative.

 

What you need to do now

Please ensure that £xxxx.xx is paid by xx/01/2017. Payment can be made online or by phone.

 

End of Email

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry about it. Lowlife Parking (Highview) don't do court. I've been trying to get them to take me to court since 2014 :lol:

 

You'll get all the usual begging letters and empty threats and then they'll realise that you're not going to roll over and pay and they'll give up and (unfortunately) go and find some other mug who will willingly hand over their hard earned. It's all a numbers game for these clowns.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't worry about it. Lowlife Parking (Highview) don't do court. I've been trying to get them to take me to court since 2014 :lol:

 

You'll get all the usual begging letters and empty threats and then they'll realise that you're not going to roll over and pay and they'll give up and (unfortunately) go and find some other mug who will willingly hand over their hard earned. It's all a numbers game for these clowns.

 

 

 

Thanks @DragonFly1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why on earth did you write to a debt collection agency?

Why didnt you read up on the as suggested then igniore them as suggested.

 

all you have done is make it more likely that you will get sued because they will think that if you are worried enough to write a long letter to these shysters you are likely to pay up.

 

I also note that you got a response as an EMAIL.

 

What part of NEVER use email ( as on every thread that email is mentionsed) dont you understand?

they can now harass you for free instead of paying for letters and stamps.

 

Start paying attention to the advice give in all of the forums and in postings other than your own. Knowledge is power.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...