Smart Parting- No initial letter and escalation

ruddin1

I thought I was meant to respond to the LBC? Was there a reason to delay it?
I got the letter before claim so my deadline to respond is by the end of the month (my 30 day to respond).

Should I just send it up to the point of what I said about POFA?

Is the abuse of process no longer valid anymore? Or is it that no one is paying the additional charges for it as the judge don't approve it?

The last paragraph was trying to scare them into thinking they'll lose money if they pursue this is court as I will seek compensation. Bad move or poorly worded?

Fruitcake

You are supposed to respond to the letter of claim, but your quote about the PoFA deadline is incorrect as it is written, you have the wrong year for Excel vs Wilkinson, unless the scammers were around in AD 202 clamping chariots and haycarts, and the term abuse of process is no longer used. It is now referred to as double recovery.

See what others say, but only the first two paragraphs are correct in my opinion. 

The scammers or scamlicitors won't be scared. What sort of compensation are you hoping for, and for what reason?
If you win you might get up to £95 unless you make and win a counterclaim for something like misuse of your date which would be a breach of the DPA/GDPR. Payouts for 'phone or video hearings are usually around zero unless you can claim for loss of earnings/holiday pay, but it is capped at £95 maximum unless you can prove the scammers acted unreasonably.

ruddin1

I meant to write 2020 for the date mistake. I will re-write the pofa part, amend the abuse of process to double recovery and remove the part about compensation. 
But essentially should I not put those details in at all or just wait for the actual claim to come through first? I was hoping to do something to stop this in it's track rather than prolong it.

Fruitcake

Nothing except a landowner cancellation will stop this going to court. Personally I would send just the first two paragraphs and save everything else for your defence, most of which is written for you anyway. You could if you wish add that the keeper is not liable as long as it is true, you understand how the NTK has failed the PoFA, and the driver hasn't been identified.

Don't expect the scammers or scamlicitors to do anything other than the absolute minimum which will be to respond to the SAR and put proceedings on hold for thirty days.

Rather than put too much effort into your reply, you would be better collecting evidence such as the landowner's identity, complaining to them, and getting current pics of the site and signage plus any historical ones from Google Streetview if relevant.

Coupon-mad

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. 

They are, in Leeds and Bradford.  Excel v Wilkinson is definitely worth citing.  Not a precedent of course but it explains the issues very well.

Le_Kirk

ruddin1 said:

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 faithfully

Some changes for you to make as above. *This is an instruction to YOU, the OP not meant to be included in the letter to CST Law.  If you have moved, inform them of you new address for service.