SCS took me to court I filed defense as advised. I have a letter to change the charge

[ostell]

What do you mean, tried repeatedly to give them the driver? Was this by letter, and you have a copy of that letter? A few (well a lot) of the parking companies believe that the driver has to be identified within the first 29 days. Wrong. The driver can be identified right up to the start of court proceedings.

[ostell]

I ask again..... How did you tell them the identity of the driver ? A phone call, a letter, email what.

[HappyDanny]

"Good afternoon thank you for your help. I called them after the first letter. I told them I was not the driver. They refused any info from me. I was told as the registered keeper I have to pay and that is that. They were very rude, I asked for my call to be diarised and told them not to contact me any more. I have never told them the drivers details" Thanking you in advance.

[HappyDanny]

" Please advise if the could this mean, I wait and go to court then offer the drivers details as my evidence to stop the case?"

[ostell]

Not being the driver is no protection, they can claim from the keeper if the comply with the requirements of POFA. You stated that this may not bee relevant land. Can you post up a google maps link to the location.

[HappyDanny]

"""New defense


Dear SCS Law
To date UK Parking and SCS Law have failed to supply details of the particulars of the claim. The defendant had to visit Camberley town center in their own time to try and establish why UK Parking think the defendant may have contracted with UK Parking. A UK Parking sign was located. The defendant can only assume it is similar to ones that may have been displayed 2 years ago.

As previously stated UK Parking Control Ltd has chosen not to rely on POFA 2012 (Schedule 4), and so have no redress against the registered keeper. The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. This was not done by the Claimant. This means the registered keeper at the time is not liable. Please refer to section below…re “relevant land”.

SCHEDULE 4

3 (1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—

(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(map below)

I refer you to the detail above taken from the Surrey Heath website. It indicates the extent of the controlled parking Zone (CPZ) It is clear this covers the whole of Camberley town. Therefore as stated above, all areas where the local Authorities have control there is no recourse to the registered Keeper.
Please can I ask that you take time and visit the internet link below to confirm the above.. http://www.surreyheath.gov.uk/reside...king/car-parks

(parking sign below)
Example of many signs throughout the control Zone in Camberley.

In light of this information provided to the defendant by a helpful member of staff at the Surrey Heath council offices. I will be going to the court to ask for the case to be struck off.

Regards """

[HappyDanny]

Not bad Try this - it's a letter about court procedure rather than about your defence so call yourself Defendant.



Dear SCS Law


Reference: Claim Number XXXXXX

I refer to your letter dated 27th February 2018 which I received on the 5th March 2018.

I have not received a copy of your further or amended particulars, either prior to, or with, your letter, therefore I am unable to consent to your amendments to your statement of case as requested at this time.

I will consider whether to consent once I have a copy of your proposed amendments.

Kind regards

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Defendant

""Good morning and thank you for your help
I have received a reply from the court about mediation. Do you think I should I go through this with SCS Law? I have also received a letter from SCS Law about consenting to changing the charge. Please see below. There are 4 separate charges. I was only aware of 1.How do you think I should respond to this. Thanking you in advance""

[ostell]

They claim you have admitted to being the driver. Yes or No ? If not then ask how they have identified the driver. They are also unsure about who they are claiming an individual or a company, the driver or the registered keeper. You need clarification as it affects your defence. You respond by asking for clarification of those points and refuse to agree until clarification os given.

[HappyDanny]

""Good morning and thank you for your help
I have received a reply from the court about mediation. Do you think I should I go through this with SCS Law? I have also received a letter from SCS Law about consenting to changing the charge. Please see below. There are 4 separate charges. I was only aware of 1.How do you think I should respond to this. Thanking you in advance""

""This is my reply to SCS Law letter above. I would be very grateful for your thoughts""

Dear SCS Law


Reference: Claim Number XXXXXX

I refer to your letter dated 28th March 2018 which was received on the 3rd April 2018. In order to consider to consent to your proposed charge change can you clarify the details below…….

1. Please provide details of a contract with the lawful occupier of the land and the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land. From discussions with the local council, there is reasonable belief that UK Parking do not have the authority to issue any charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.

1. Please provide full details and reasoning of UK Parking refusal to accept the driver details that were supplied to them on or around the date of the alleged inferred contract. If so then paragraph 5 (1) (b) of POFA no longer applies and therefore no keeper liability. As the full driver details were supplied to the claimant, then paragraph 5 (1) (b) of POFA no longer applies and therefore no keeper liability. Dually, the Claimant is unable to rely on paragraph 4(2) of schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012 and has no right to bring this claim against the defendant.

1. Please confirm that UKP have conformed to the required data protection procedure. Also provide full details of the distribution and use of the Defendant’s private and personal information. This to also include references and details from the DVLC. By the distribution and use of the defendants details UKP and SCS Law have not complied with data protection requirements.

1. The defendant states that UK Parking and SCS Law have not fully complied with the practice direction pre-court action conduct. Can this be confirmed as correct? Satisfactory proof will be required.

1. The defendant asks UK Parking and SCS law to confirm that they have waited nearly 2 years before proceeding to a claim, the absences of any pre-action protocols and the claim only listing a total amount was a deliberate attempt to gain a judgment in their favour against the claimant by default.

1. Can Uk Parking and SCS Law confirm they have no control or jurisdiction over parking bays within Park street area. After 8:00am and before 6:00 Monday to Friday

1. Can UK Parking and SCS Law confirm the land referred to by the claimant is not `relevant land’ as required as part of Protection of freedoms Act 2012 schedule 4 section 3, 1 , b in this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including above or below ground level) other than- (2) in sub-paragraph (1) (b)—(e) the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district
2. Can UK Parking and SCS Law confirm their acceptance, that should there be any consent to change the charge they will accept the additional court cost that are required for provide further defense as would be necessary, this is to also include the costs of legal representation. The defendant reserves the right to refer to the contents of this correspondence on the question of costs.

Can UK Parking and SCS Law confirm why they feel obliged to seek any additional payments from the defendant for charge change when it is due to their own short comings?

[HappyDanny]

"Good afternoon
Thank you for all your help. The judge in Aldershot allowed SCS the right to change the "particulars of the Charge" . He did not look at any of my evidence that it was a deliberate attempt by UKPC & SCS Law to get judgement by default.. Despite all protestations he said that he had to take it at face value and accept it was a "clerical error"
The case was kicked out
When UKPC & SCS Law eventually presented their evidence, all the images had been heavily edited to conceal the vehicles actual location and signage. They presented signs from elsewhere claiming them to be the signs concerned. It was very embarrassing and indeed, frightening, that they could pursue anyone to court with totally made up evidence. The date text on the sign and the car are completely different, allegedly taken at the same time. This is the thing nightmares are made of"




ACTUAL SIGN