Eurocarparks CST law LBA SAR no response

Redx

There seems to be seven PCN s , where £60 has been added to each one , not allowed , so that's £420 not allowed

£232 interest seems extortionate to me , who calculated that on their abacus , that labour MP that can't add up ?

The £105 additional surcharge also seems to be spurious too !!

BrownTrout

Redx said:

There seems to be seven PCN s , where £60 has been added to each one , not allowed , so that's £420 not allowed

£232 interest seems extortionate to me , who calculated that on their abacus , that labour MP that can't add up ?

The £105 additional surcharge also seems to be spurious too !!

yes the £105 is the additional "drp add on", that will be kicked into touch!
Oh and you mean Dianne Abbott
Can you imagine her in charge of the security of this country.  She would have welcomed terrorists back from syria with open arms

judrop500

Castle said:

There's a VRM showing in Para 9 of their POC.

Thanks - have updated

judrop500

beamerguy said:

judrop500 said:

Thanks for all your help so far. This is the latest update. What’s my next move? Do I resubmit my defence, or does it need a rewrite? 

The court order you received is the second for CST Law we have seen.   How many more are unknown here.

Remember their claim was signed as a statement of truth
Any changes from them now will be probably be fatal.
I think CST Law are in trouble

Could you explain?

judrop500

BrownTrout said:

Redx said:

There seems to be seven PCN s , where £60 has been added to each one , not allowed , so that's £420 not allowed

£232 interest seems extortionate to me , who calculated that on their abacus , that labour MP that can't add up ?

The £105 additional surcharge also seems to be spurious too !!

yes the £105 is the additional "drp add on", that will be kicked into touch!
Oh and you mean Dianne Abbott
Can you imagine her in charge of the security of this country.  She would have welcomed terrorists back from syria with open arms

Should I resubmit my original defence, or should I add in more detail about the extrotionate additional costs? Or should I rewrite entirely? For reference I used the proforma defence on the Newbies thread and adjusted it.

nosferatu1001

They signed the claim stating it was true
They have now sent in a POC which seems to not fully line up with wha tthey initiialy said - have you compared the two?
Why do you think you shoudl rewrite entirely? What about the original defence -which already covers additional charges and by def includes their HILARIOUS attempt to magic an extra £105 in! - is deficient? 
This is your defence
You have to understand it. 
SO you need to answer those questions yourself. 

Coupon-mad

I do think the defence could have more added, for example (but not in these words in a formal defence): on what planet do they think they can add a 'late payment surcharge'?  Never heard a PPC or robo-claim solicitor try to call it that before, but that law only applies to business-to-business debts:

https://www.gov.uk/late-commercial-payments-interest-debt-recovery/charging-interest-commercial-debt

judrop500

@nosferatu1001 I intend to go over everything thoroughly soon. I think what you and @Coupon-mad are saying is that they have claimed something as a statement of truth, which is inconsistent to what has been claimed before? Is this a legitimate defence?
My question really is not the content of the defence (apart from the above point) and more whether the court / judge would frown upon me submitting two very similar documents? 

Thanks again.

Redx

Only one defence can normally be submitted

The time to elaborate and wax lyrical is at the WS stage

But the judge has stated that an amended Defence can be submitted , so keep the original intact but maybe add a paragraph objecting to all the additional spurious charges , especially the surcharge , which together is more than double recovery and more if an abuse of process ( something we tend not to say but seems relevant here )

Bear in mind that defence 1 addressed POC 1 , defence 2 is to address POC 2

Manchester court is a graveyard for parking companies !! So bear that in mind !!

Le_Kirk

If the judge stated "amended" defence, you need to keep the original defence, strike through (in blue I believe) anything you want to remove and add anything new in red.