LBC from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd, Letter Before Claim from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd Options

[langworth]

Hello

I've received a Letter Before Claim from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd.

Situation: staying temporarily at a private residence (private residents parking with allocated bays) with a tenant who has a parking permit but no vehicle, and I used his allocated parking bay and with their permission
I displayed a permit "to the best of my recollection" all the time (but realistically maybe not always )
Received PCNs for alleged parking violations in a “Designated permit holder’s space without displaying a permit”, and” Not parking correctly within a marked bay”.
On one of the occasions when I was ticketed I was actually in a visitors slot and not in a residents slot at all
But - I did not respond to PCN's because the first time they issued one to me, I complained and they cancelled the charge on presentation of evidence that I had a parking permit.


The Tenant's agreement does not specify any specific parking rights, but the space in question is shown allocated to the flat and I have a residents parking permit.

I've prepared a letter in reply to the LBC based on samples I've seen but thought it wise to get get your opinions first.
The part Im not sure about is that I don't have access to the original Lease therefore can't be sure of Primacy of Contract.
Is it better not to muddy the waters with guesses about Primacy of Contract, and instead rely on the fact that I was parked in an allocated bay with the property holders permission and that I (probably) displayed a permit?

SCS Law
Level 34
25 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London E14 5LQ


24th September 2018

Dear Sirs

UK Parking Control Ltd – Response to Letter before Claim

I refer to your letter before claim dated 11th September. This is my formal response for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims

1. Proposed Claim

1.1 Parking of my vehicle in parking bay “BS” in the car park at <location>, in alleged breach of contract leading to a claim of £1120.00 against me by your Client, UK Parking Control Ltd

2. Preliminary Issues

2.1 The Letter Before Claim appears to be largely generic in format, and does not conform to the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims sub-paragraphs 2.1(a),(b),©, 3.1a(iv), 5.1 and 5.2. As solicitors (particularly those engaged, like yourselves, in issuing large numbers of generic claims such as this) you ought to know that you have failed to meet the requirements. Please consider 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 below my formal request for information under the Pre Action Protocol.

2.2 In accordance with the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims sub-paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, please forward details of the following within 30 days of this request:

2.2.1 Copies of un-redacted contracts in place on the relevant dates, showing the chain of authority from the landowner to your Client and establishing their standing to bring this Claim.

2.2.2 Details of the specific signage, with location, wording and font size(s) on which your Client is intending to rely (your mention of “signage throughout the site” is not sufficiently clear).

2.2.3 Photographs of my vehicle in relation to the signage on which your Client is intending to rely.

2.2.4 Any other documents that your Client intends to rely on in court



3. Response to the proposed Claim

3.1 The proposed Claim is disputed in its entirety.

3.1.1 Your letter does not identify the location of the alleged breach of contract, merely listing alleged parking violations in a “Designated permit holder’s space without displaying a permit.”, and” Not parking correctly within a marked bay”.

3.1.2 On all occasions the vehicle was parked in the designated Resident Permit Holder Parking Space “BS” that is allocated to the property, with one exception, where the vehicle was parked in a slot clearly marked “Visitors” and for which no ticket should have been issued at all.

3.1.3 Your Client (UK Parking Control Ltd.) has previously cancelled an alleged parking violation, for this very same vehicle in the very same slot for the same alleged transgression, upon presentation of evidence of possession of the correct parking permit. Your Client should consider this precedent, and their willingness to abandon proceedings on presentation of evidence of right of parking, very carefully.

3.1.4 On all occasions, to the best of the driver’s recollection, a valid permit was visibly displayed.

3.1.5 Judgement as to what does or does not constitute “parking correctly within a marked bay” and the degree to which such alleged trivial and vexatious accusations hold merit, is highly subjective and will be robustly defended.

Property Rights

3.2 The property Lease provides an allocated parking space (bay “BS)”.

3.3 The Lease cannot be varied without the leaseholder’s consent.

3.4 The Lease has not been varied (since parking bay “BS” was allocated to the property) with regard to parking in bay “BS”, neither has it been varied in any other respect related to parking.

3.5 The following actions conflict with my rights to peaceful enjoyment of my property by removing my unfettered right to park in the bay allocated to the property; requiring payment if the driver does not display a permit while parked on the property; binding the driver of the vehicle to a contract with a third party over something already allocated to the property.

3.5.1 Notwithstanding the explanation at 3.5, the remedy for any breach by me of Lessee covenants would lie with the Lessor and not with your Client.

Primacy of Contract

3.6 Notwithstanding my unfettered right to park in Bay “BS”, as detailed in 3.2 – 3.8 above It is alleged by your Client that by parking on bay “BS” the driver entered into a contract with your Client, which is specifically denied, for the reasons below.

3.6.1 A prior contract exists which cannot be over-ridden by your Client.

3.6.2 Signage at the site would only be capable of forming a contract in certain circumstances, including but not limited to, the absence of an existing contract. However, since you are relying on it, you must provide full details to me. I have requested the details at 2.2.2.



4. 4.1 In compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol, I have enclosed evidence of the Tenancy agreement establishing property rights, and invite your Client to reconsider this Claim, and further, to cease and desist from entering the property (bay “BS”) or affixing any notice to any vehicle parked therein.

4.2 In compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol, I have enclosed evidence of the right to park in an allocated space (the parking permit allocated to the property for parking bay “BS”)

4.3 To continue with this action, which is bound to fail, would be vexatious and unreasonable, and could have detrimental consequences for your Client in terms of costs.

4.4 If you fail to provide the requested documents within 30 days, and proceed to litigation, I will immediately apply for a stay, at your Client’s expense, until you comply. I will also notify the Solicitors Regulation Authority of your inability to follow this most basic requirement.



5. Counter Claim

5.1 You will know that as this is a residential location the residents will have a lease or agreement for the property they own or rent. It would be incumbent upon you to consider the leaseholder rights in respect of the use of allocated parking spaces

5.2 If your Client continues to litigation I shall be submitting a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office about your misuse of personal data, and issuing a counter-claim against your Client for 7 breaches of the Data Protection Act at £200 for each wrongful application for, and misuse of, my personal details from the DVLA, and 7 counts of trespass on the property as evidenced by affixing notices to the windscreen of my vehicle at £160.00 per occasion. Total amount of the claim £2,520.00.



Documents Enclosed: (i) evidence of issued parking permit for allocated parking for the property at <location> (ii) evidence of property rights for the property at <location>

This post has been edited by langworth: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 20:41

[Advertisement]

[ManxRed]

Is there any issue with sending them the whole agreement?

I'm thinking they are in Mexican Standoff mode now, waiting to see who blinks first, but sending them the agreement in full might make them see sense and back down.

[langworth]

Maybe - but I'm not the tenant and they've asked for *my* tenancy agreement.

But then I don't need to be a tenant to legally park there...

[langworth]

I can add an update to this saga.

After I replied to their last letter, I received a notification from the court that they had lodged a claim. I was given the opportunity to respond and state whether I would defend the claim. I confirmed that I would defend it, re-iterated the same grounds. That was about the beginning of May. The court has just issued a Directions Questionnaire so - to my surprise - they're proceeding with the claim.

I'm still happy to spend a couple of hours on the day hopefully pointing out common sense to the Judge, with the tenant as witness, but will add more updates as it progresses.

[Sheffield Dave]

So what exactly was the full text of the defence you submitted to the court?

[nosferatu1001]

Ah. Yeah.

Please show us the defence you submitted. This was your one and only chance to raise all legal grounds you wish to rely upon.

You have another stage as well x writing your witness statement, and supplying all other evidence.

[langworth]

Here's the defence i submitted


I dispute the claim made against me for alleged parking charges at
Taylor Court, Todd Close, Borehamwood WD61FZ.

I have previously provided:

• The Land Registry documents for the property at 20 Taylor Court,
Todd Close (where, you were informed, I was and still am
occasionally resident) clearly show the marked parking space that
I had been legally and rightfully using, as the parking space
attached to the property.

• The first page of the Tenancy Agreement for the property at 20
Taylor Court, Todd Close, Borehamwood WD61FZ.

• I have advised you that the tenant at the property at 20 Taylor
Court, Todd Close, Borehamwood WD61FZ is keen to substantiate by
attending any proceedings in person.

• Copy of the previous parking permit for the property at 20
Taylor Court, Todd Close, Borehamwood WD61FZ.

• Copy of the current parking permit for the property at 20 Taylor
Court, Todd Close, Borehamwood WD61FZ.

• A record of events from a prior alleged parking charge at the
same location for which I was asked to provide evidence of the
right to park, following which the charge was cancelled.

I have made every effort to provide the evidence that demonstrates
that I have enjoyed, and still enjoy, the right to park at that
location.


Simon

Now in the process of replying to the Directions doc stating that I don't wish to mediate. They do. I don't think there is anything to negotiate so I'm happy to have 30 minutes in court to see if a judge sees sense.

[The Rookie]

Oh dear, while not as bad as it could have been, that isn't even written as a defence and more as a witness statement. There isn't a single legal defence point stated.

Why on earth didn't you come back here FIRST? They will most certainly now take this to a hearing.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 - 11:04

[Sheffield Dave]

Yuck. Your defence doesn't actually provide much in the way of defence points, although there is at least a hint of primacy of contract and that you dispute the claim.

[langworth]

My grounds are simple. I was and am entitled to park there. If the Judge disagrees then so be it.

On the contrary, they will not "most certainly now take this to a hearing", they've requested mediation. That suggests they want to reach an accommodation. I don't. I don't see why I should pay to park where I'm entitled to park.I'm happy to proceed to a hearing.

[nosferatu1001]

Yes, but you dont actually dispute their claim, not really. Your "grounds" may be simple, but you didnt actually respond to the FORMAL legal process in teh way that is *required*. This isnt something simple like writing to a council or service rovider. This is a court. Treat it with respect

Oh, and they *always* go for mediation. They LOVE mediaiton. THe mediator will, invariably, pressure the D to settle. This works quite often, as the D does this once, the C does this day in day out.

[Redivi]

My grounds are simple. I was and am entitled to park there. If the Judge disagrees then so be it.

On the contrary, they will not "most certainly now take this to a hearing", they've requested mediation. That suggests they want to reach an accommodation.

No

It means that they'll offer to knock £50 off the claim

This will save them £50 hearing fee, £200 solicitor charge and travel costs without any risk that the claim will fail

As Nosferatu has already said, for you this is once in a lifetime
For UKPC it's somebody's day time job

I made a study once of the results of mediation for one company, before keeper liability
On average, the parking company received 85% of its original demand
It made no difference that the claim would have certainly failed at a hearing

It also saves UKPC having to explain their case to a judge
A mediator isn't interested in the facts or whether any payment is owed
He is only interested in stopping the case going to a hearing

We've known cases where the mediator has told the OP that he has no defence and should settle before it becomes really expensive

[langworth]

Precisely. I'm not interested in mediation or a negotiated settlement and have disputed the claim, whether in the correct jargon or not.

I've also no intention of helping them reduce their costs - it should never have come this far.

[nosferatu1001]

Its not "jargon", thats what you seem to not appreciate.

You have barely cited any legal grounds why you are not liable.