Smart Parting- No initial letter and escalation

KeithP

I think you should respond to that LBC by stating that you are seeking debt advice and as per the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims you expect them to put the matter on hold for 30 days.
This is explained in the second post of the NEWBIES thread.

You need to be reading the second post of the NEWBIES thread to discover what happens next and what you should be doing now.

Umkomaas

Highly unlikely that you will get a county court claim. I think we've only seen a couple instigated by CST, and from memory, they were not Smart Parking claims. 

Smart are not litigious. In the last full year (2019) Smart issued 371,000 parking charges and were involved in the county court on just 8 occasions (and these weren't necessarily parking-related). 

D_P_Dance

I would also write to them asking to account for the unlawful additions, have you read this?

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

Coupon-mad

Have a read of the CST Law group thread.  The letter is probably sent by Debt Recovery Plus, in fact.

ruddin1

The letter seems to be sent by CST law with a proper letter before claim. Its very different from previous letters from the forum where the person they say they're representing is DRP (Though it does instruct me to pay DRP).This one refers to smart parking specifically. I noticed that previously people also email CST law the but that's not available on their letter head. So should I probably write to their address about holding off the claim until I get a debt advice?

KeithP

ruddin1 said:

So should I probably write to their address about holding off the claim until I get a debt advice?

Yes.          

Coupon-mad

If you want to delay it, yes. 

If you'd rather they crack on, just reply denying the debt and telling them you are getting a SAR from Smart, and ask for any evidence to assist you to identify who was driving, or does their client believe they can rely upon the POFA 2012 (we know Smart can't and don't use the POFA...but ask CST!).

ruddin1

Thanks. I'll write a draft and get back to you

ruddin1

Hey guys. This is what I'm about to sent to CST law. Please let me know what you think and whether I should add/remove or edit anything.

Dear CST Law

I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put ‘on hold’ for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

I have sent your client a subject access request (SAR).

Please also confirm your correct ‘address for service’ if you’ve moved and the private parking company has two addresses.

I request also what evidence you have to show who was driving the vehicle at the time of these incidents. May I remind you that the parking charge notice was sent 14 days after the incident and as a result keeper liability no longer applies as per POFA 2012.

In addition, recent cases have shown (Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 202) where unlawful £60/£70 being added on top of parking charge notice for ‘administrative purposes’ has resulted in these cases being thrown out on the bases of ‘abuse of process’, as clients such as yours are attempting to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Should you pursue you this to court I am confident that your case will be struck out and I will be seeking costs for reimbursement for the time I have had to spend to respond to you, your client and debt recovery plus.

 

I look forward to your response.

sincerely

Me

Fruitcake

Don't send anything yet other than the Fourteen days after the incident is within the PoFA requirements. More than fourteen days is outside, but remember that the date of the alleged incident is day zero. In other words, the NTK must arrive by day 15 from the date of the alleged event for the keeper to be liable.

You have the wrong year for Excel vs Wilkinson, but I believe it no longer applies anyway. Cases are NOT being thrown out for abuse of process. At best, the fake £60/£70 add-ons for attempts at double recovery are being knocked off by judges.

Don't send anything yet, or if you are near a deadline, only send the first two paragraphs of the above.
I don't understand what you mean in paragraph 3.