Is this letter a Letter Before Claim ?

Redx

See post #56 and add the abuse of process as a point , plus exhibit

Then add your costs schedule as an exhibit and as the last paragraph

silverchoice

Redx wrote: »

See post #56 and add the abuse of process as a point , plus exhibit

Then add your costs schedule as an exhibit and as the last paragraph

Is this the abuse of process part?


[FONT=&quot]6. In the Court of Appeal case involving NATIONAL CAR PARKS LTD-and-THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMERS[2019] EWCA Civ 854,Paragraphs 18,19 and 20 of that judgement make interesting reading in regards to the information in a pay and display car park.I would suggest ParkingEye Ltd need to take heed of this binding case law and stop misleading consumers regarding the start of a pay and display parking contract,which is completely different from the free car park scenario in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2015]UKSC67.(Exhibit xx 7).


[/FONT]

Le_Kirk

silverchoice wrote: »

Is this the abuse of process part?
[FONT=&quot]6. In the Court of Appeal case involving NATIONAL CAR PARKS LTD-and-THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMERS[2019] EWCA Civ 854,Paragraphs 18,19 and 20 of that judgement make interesting reading in regards to the information in a pay and display car park.I would suggest ParkingEye Ltd need to take heed of this binding case law and stop misleading consumers regarding the start of a pay and display parking contract,which is completely different from the free car park scenario in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2015]UKSC67.(Exhibit xx 7). [/FONT]

No, search the forum for a thread by beamerguy called Abuse of Process with a comment at post # 14 of that thread by Coupon-mad; alternatively read threads by CEC16 or basher52

Coupon-mad

Don't say this:

I was therefore only one minute over the minimum grace period.

Do include this:

x. In the Court of Appeal case involving NATIONAL CAR PARKS LTD-and-THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS [STRIKE]CUSTOMERS[/STRIKE] [2019] EWCA Civ 854, Paragraphs 18,19 and 20 of that judgment [STRIKE]judgement[/STRIKE] make interesting reading in regards to the information in a pay and display car park. I would suggest that this Claimant has paid no regard to [STRIKE]ParkingEye Ltd need to take heed of[/STRIKE] this binding case law which already stands against them as authority from the Court of Appeal as to when a paid-for parking 'contractual licence' begins, and stop misleading [STRIKE]consumers[/STRIKE] and issuing unfair parking charges to paying patrons. [STRIKE]regarding the start of a pay and display parking contract, which[/STRIKE] This sort of car park contract, with a quantifiable tariff and purchase time (with the PDT 'receipt' granting a stated time of the parking licence commencement and expiry) is completely different from the free car park scenario in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2015]UKSC67.(Exhibit xx).

You need to read CEC16's thread to understand the issues regarding adding £60 and use the wording and links in post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread as part of a Supplementary WS with additional exhibits about the falsely added costs.

silverchoice

This is the second draft of my witness statement. Any comments welcome. For which paragraphs do I need to provide further evidence?

[FONT=&quot]______________________
WITNESS STATEMENT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I am xxx the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]On 7th April 2018, I parked my vehicle registration number xxxxxxx after entering the car park at 16:15.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I entered the car park with honest intentions and adhered to the terms on display as best as they could be deciphered. As would be expected, it took me a few minutes after crossing the threshold of the site, find a suitable parking space, safely park, gather my belongings, lock the car and walk to the payment machine, where I then read the signs and paid for my parking in good faith. I was with my wife, daughter and 11 month old grandson so obviously this added more time onto this.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I went shopping in Doncaster and returned to my vehicle and exited the car park 18:36 which I thought was acceptable including any grace period. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I have considered the Code of Practice ("CoP") of the British Parking Association ("BPA"), of which the Claimant is an accredited member. In order to be an accredited member of the BPA, compliance with the CoP is compulsory. See paragraphs 4.1 and 6 of the CoP[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Exhibits 1 and 2). The significance of being a member of the BPA and subscribing to its CoP is that the Claimant is only entitled to ask the DVLA for the details of a car’s registered keeper if it is a member.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Paragraph 13 of the CoP clearly states that a grace period is to be applied to parking. The CoP makes clear that such grace periods are to be applied both at the start of any parking period and also at the end of any parking period. The whole point of these grace periods is to allow drivers time to find a parking space and to read the signage prior to commencement of the period of parking, and time to exit the carpark once they have finished parking. Grace periods are not defined, but the CoP requires them to be "a minimum of 10 minutes" either side of the actual parking (paragraphs 13.2 and 13.4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Exhibit 3). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In this case, the data produced and relied upon by the Claimant shows that the period passing between my car entering and leaving via the ANPR cameras was 2 hours and 21 minutes. Applying the "minimum" 10 minutes either side of the parking, the minimum total grace period I should have been allowed by the Claimant under its own compulsory CoP was 20 minutes. It is worthy of note that the recommended grace period is a minimum of 10 minutes, it is not a maximum.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. Helpfully, Kelvin Reynolds, BPA Director of Corporate Affairs has gone on record in an official BPA article about ‘good practice and grace periods’ (plural) that there is a difference between ‘grace periods’ and ‘observation’ periods and good practice allows for this. ”Our guidance specifically says there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains. “No time limit is specified. This is because it may take one person 5 minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability “. (Exhibit 4). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10.1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Beavis case is against this Claim[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11.1. This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts. To quote from the decision in the Beavis case at Para [108]: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''. Ad at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11.2. In the Beavis case it was said at para [205]: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11.3. At para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11.4. At para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.'' and at para 198: ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The POFA 2012 and the ATA Code of Practice are against this Claim[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') is against this claim[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.1. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.2. That decision in Wales was contested in a N244 application by VCS, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30 Oct 2019. District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on, and despite parking firms continuing to include it in their Particulars, most advocates have now stopped pushing for it at hearings. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances, and further, he ordered that the Claimant must now produce a statement of how they pleaded claims prior to Beavis, and subsequently.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.3. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.3.1. Cases summarily struck out in that circuit included BPA members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and IPC members using Gladstones' robo-claim model, and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in the Beavis case. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.3.2. BW Legal made an application objecting to two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against a parking firm for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge. This has been repeated conduct in recent years, on the back of the Beavis case, where parking firms have almost unanimously contrived to add £60, or more, on top of the 'parking charge'. Members of both ATAs who have influence on their self-serving 'Trade Bodies' have even voted to have this imaginary 'damages/debt collection' sum added to their respective two Codes of Practice, to create a veil of legitimacy, no doubt to allow their members to confuse consumers and to enable them to continue to 'get away with it' in several court areas which are still allowing this double recovery.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.3.3. That N244 application to try to protect the cartel-like position of some of the 'bigger player' parking firms, was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.3.4. At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. It was successfully argued that the parking firm's consumer notice stood in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. Using the statutory duty upon the Courts to consider the test of fairness and properly apply schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 it was irrelevant whether or not the consumers' defences had raised it before, which they had not. The same issues apply to this claim.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.3.5. A transcript will be publicly available shortly. In his summing up, it was noted that District Judge Grand stated: ''When I come to consider whether the striking out of the whole claim is appropriate, that the inclusion of the £60 charge means that the whole claim is tainted by it, the claimant should well know that it is not entitled to the £60. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances seems to me that it is an abuse of process of the court, and in saying that, I observe that with any claim that can be brought before the court that if a party doesn't put in a defence to the claim, default judgments are entered. So, the Claimant, in bringing the claims is, in other cases, aware that if the defendant doesn’t submit a defence, the Claimant is going to get a judgment of a knowingly inflated amount. So I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside Judge Taylor’s ruling.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.4. Consumer notices - such as car park signs - are not excused by the CRA 'core exemption'. The CMA Official Government Guidance to the CRA says: ''2.43 In addition, terms defining the main subject matter and setting the price can only benefit from the main exemption from the fairness test ('the core exemption') if they are transparent (and prominent) – see part 3 of the guidance.'' and at 3.2 ''The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine 'core' contractual issues).'' The parking industry is the exception to this rule because they have no consumer 'customers' yet are consumer-facing. Their intention is very clearly in many cases (including this case) for a consumer not to see the onerous terms hidden in their notices and it is averred that no regard is paid to consumer law.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13.5. The definition of a consumer notice is given at 1.19 and the test of fairness is expanded at 1.20: ''A consumer notice is defined broadly in the Act as a notice that relates to rights or obligations between a trader and a consumer, or a notice which appears to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability to a consumer. It includes an announcement or other communication, whether or not in writing, as long as it is reasonable to assume that it is intended to be seen or heard by a consumer. Consumer notices are often used, for instance, in public places such as shops or car parks as well as online and in documentation that is otherwise contractual in nature. [...] Consumer notices are, therefore, subject to control for fairness under the Act even where it could be argued that they do not form part of the contract as a matter of law. Part 2 of the Act covers consumer notices as well as terms, ensuring that, in a broad sense any wording directed by traders to consumers which has an effect comparable to that of a potentially unfair contract term is open to challenge in the same way as such a term. There is no need for technical legal arguments about whether a contract exists and whether, if it does, the wording under consideration forms part of it.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the IOW, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out multiple parking ticket claims from various firms all due to the adding of the false £60 costs to £100 parking charge, that already indisputably (in law and case law) includes those costs. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14.1. The Judge determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' further, in issuing his Orders striking out several £160 parking claims without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the Court of Appeal case involving NATIONAL CAR PARKS LTD-and-THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS [2019] EWCA Civ 854, Paragraphs 18,19 and 20 of that judgment make interesting reading in regards to the information in a pay and display car park. I would suggest that this Claimant has paid no regard to this binding case law which already stands against them as authority from the Court of Appeal as to when a paid-for parking 'contractual licence' begins, and stop misleading consumers and issuing unfair parking charges to paying patrons. This sort of car park contract, with a quantifiable tariff and purchase time (with the PDT 'receipt' granting a stated time of the parking licence commencement and expiry) is completely different from the free car park scenario in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015]UKSC67.(Exhibit xx).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]Statement of Truth[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Signature [/FONT]

silverchoice

Any comments please?

silverchoice

 

silverchoice

BW Legal have emailed me with an offer:

Balance Due: £279.88

Contravention: Parked longer than the time paid for

 

We write with reference to the above matter.

 

Our client remains willing to resolve matters with you without the need for any further involvement from the court. As a result, our client has instructed us to make you an offer of settlement in order to avoid either party incurring any further costs. The offer is a show of goodwill on the part of our client in trying to resolve matters with you on amicable terms

 

The offer below has no bearing on any advice we have given our client regarding the merits of their claim and our client remains confident that if the claim does proceed to a hearing, the court will find in their favour.

 

The Offer

 

Strictly without prejudice, our client is willing to offer you a discount on the total balance due. If you take advantage of this offer, the amount you will need to pay in order to satisfy our client’s claim is the sum of £190.00 (which is inclusive of interest and our client's costs and fees). This offer will expire at 4pm on 13 February 2020 so it is important that you contact us before this date.

 

Once the discounted amount is paid, your file and the court will be updated accordingly, and you will not be pursued for any remaining balance due on this account.

 

What to do next

 

It is important that you call us before the 7 day period expires to discuss the options available to you.

 

If you have not taken any of the action above before the deadline expires, we are instructed to proceed with our client’s claim with a view to obtain a County Court Judgment against you for the full balance owed, including costs and interest.

nosferatu1001

You posted it twice apparently.
If they were that confident, why offer a discount?