SCS law ticket |
SCS law ticket |
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:22
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,047 |
Driver parked in a private car park before Christmas last year. Driver overstayed a 2 hour limit by half an hour. In the proceeding seven months, keeper has received letter after letter from a private company asking for a payment which now stands at 160pounds. Keeper did not respond to letters, and has now received a letter from SCS Law promising a court claim.
Keeper is wondering what best to do: the letter from SCS arrived at the keeper's house after months of no contact. 7 months on from the original offence seems a long time too. Wondering what you guys would suggest. Best, U This post has been edited by umbro14: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:56 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:22
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:36
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
Ignoring has not been a tactic since 2012.
A lot of parking companies now chance their arms with court claims, so it's best to try and head that eventuality off before it gets there. They have six years from the date of the incident to bring a court claim so seven months is not unusual. We've seen Letters Before Claims and Claims themselves years and years later. Which parking company? In the letter from SCS, who does it suggest you pay if you want to settle the matter? Do you still have a copy of the original Notice to Keeper and can we see a scan of it (minus personal details, but leave in the dates)? Do you have any photos of the signs at the location? -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:38
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Ignore has not been the option since 2012, as you have found out.
So post up the original PCN that you, the keeper, received. Suitably redacted but leave dates. If you have no documents thenma SAR to the parking company and a letter to SCS requesting that they stop processing while their client responds to the SAR request. |
|
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:48
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,047 |
Cheers guys - just working atm, so will get these documents and info later tonight from the keeper and respond properly then.
This post has been edited by umbro14: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:53 |
|
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:52
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
No, you will get the information from the keeper. The driver is not involved anymore and should not be identified. As in the first post the driver parked and the keeper received the letter. Please edit, just for safety.
|
|
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:56
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,047 |
Thankyou, appreciate the advice, done - please advise if either post needs further amending
This post has been edited by umbro14: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:56 |
|
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 17:45
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 647 Joined: 10 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,458 |
Assuming this is covered by POFA then the maximum liability cannot be £160. It can only be £100 or whatever it said on the NTK. It will be interesting g to know who SCS are asking the RK to pay. It probably isn't to them which would suggest a possible forged letter.
|
|
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 00:37
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,047 |
Hi guys, the Keeper has had a look through and has the following two documents available. There is the original PCN. There is then also the follow-up letter from SCS. Don't have any pictures of the signs at the location yet but will be able to get these tomorrow.
Had to post the second side of the original PCN as a JPEG, was too large for the upload limit otherwise. Appreciate any advice This post has been edited by umbro14: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 00:43
Attached File(s)
Jul_12__Doc_1.pdf ( 629K )
Number of downloads: 84
Jul_12__Doc_2.pdf ( 942.89K ) Number of downloads: 67 |
|
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 05:44
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 647 Joined: 10 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,458 |
The SCS Law letter is quite probably fraudulent. The letter refers to 'several' previous letters sent but the RK has not received any. It also requests that payment of £160 is paid to DRP. Under POFA the RK cannot be held liable for a penny more than the original £100 on the NTK so this is total bulls**t.
They throw in the blah blah about Beavis, which is not relevant and is there purely as a threat tactic. They make it clear that the letter is not a LBC and so is as much use as toilet paper. It is purely to make it look threatening hoping that the RK will be stupid enough to pay them £160! The so called formal solicitors letter is signed with a squiggle and signed off SCS Law. A legitimate solicitors letter would include a name. The same happened to me and I wrote to SCS Law asking them to confirm that they had sent the letter. You can also point out the errors above for good measure. Give them 14 days to respond otherwise you will assume that the letter is fraudulent and that you may take action with the appropriate authorities. I even sent the letter 'signed for' to be sure that SCS received it, which they did. Needless to say I never heard back from them! This post has been edited by Macapaca: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 05:53 |
|
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 06:17
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
QUOTE The so called formal solicitors letter is signed with a squiggle and signed off SCS Law. A legitimate solicitors letter would include a name. It's how all SCS letters I've seen are signed off. Many solicitor firms do the same. QUOTE The same happened to me and I wrote to SCS Law asking them to confirm that they had sent the letter. You can also point out the errors above for good measure. Give them 14 days to respond otherwise you will assume that the letter is fraudulent and that you may take action with the appropriate authorities. I even sent the letter 'signed for' to be sure that SCS received it, which they did. Needless to say I never heard back from them! I'd definitely follow this tack, asking SCS to confirm they sent the letter as you are aware from the public domain that DRP use the letterheads of solicitor firms to mislead the public. You need a formal response to this, failure to do so will lead to a complaint being lodged with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. |
|
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 08:58
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,047 |
Cheers guys. Just to be clear, follow up letters that the SCS letter refers to were received, but the Keeper didnt keep them
Should the Keeper say to SCS, ‘can I confirm you sent me this letter?’, while also referencing POFA and how a charge of 160 pounds is basically illegal? |
|
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 09:10
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
It isnt illegal. It is an abuse of proces to claim a sum they are not entitled to, and POFA limits the liability PLUS the £60 was never actually paid.
|
|
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 09:26
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 647 Joined: 10 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,458 |
Hopefully you now realise that these letters should not be ignored and that you will keep copies of all future correspondence. These cases sometimes go dormant for a few years and then they chance their arm again hoping to catch people out who have discarded all their correspondence or have moved house. In the latter case they chance a default CCJ.
The following is a redacted extract from the letter I sent to SCS Law: [b]Reference your letter dated xxx (Received on yyy)[/b] Your letter appears rather odd in that you appear to be now working on behalf of xxx and yet you request that I contact xxx instead of SCS Law. As a legal firm you ought to be aware that under POFA para 4 (5) the maximum amount that can be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper, which in this case is £100 not £160 as quoted in your letter. Please outline why you believe an additional £60 applies. I now require you to respond to this letter within 14 days to acknowledge that it was indeed sent by SCS Law. The lack of a response will be taken as confirmation that the letter was counterfeit and can be ignored and reported to trading standards as an attempt to fraudulently obtain money. |
|
|
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 - 13:03
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,047 |
Thanks very much guys. Will remember to keep all correspondence in future.
Macapaca - appreciate the extract a lot. |
|
|
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 10:45
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 20 Nov 2018 Member No.: 101,047 |
14 days long past and no reply from these lot. Should the Keeper report them to trading standards?
|
|
|
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 12:26
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Yes, because you said you would do so.
|
|
|
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 19:20
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
And report them to the SRA as per my post #10 above.
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 07:54
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
The PCN does not comply with POFA in several respects
No keeper liability |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:18 |