I WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Coupon-mad

nosferatu1001 said:

Sending a sar is not a lbc response. 

You tell them , in your response, that  you deny the debt for short set of reasons, and you're seeking debt advice

Agreed.  A Judge will want to see that you responded.

It's a good idea and perfectly reasonable to state that any debt is disputed and denied, and that the quantum is exaggerated and unrecoverable because they can't have debt collection (operational) costs twice.  Also ask for a copy of the contract (the sign) because that won't be supplied in the SAR.

Grimghast

Ok thanks for the advice guys, I shall crack on with writing a letter of response tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

Email, not letter.  Every common parking firm's email are on this forum for the sake of searching.

Grimghast

So I emailed this to their litigation department and got an automated response saying they would deal with it within 28 days

Will that suffice as a response to the LBC?

Dear Sir / Madam

I write regarding your letter dated 19/05/2020 Ref ...........

I wish to inform you that 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 SAR and have insufficient information, to date.

I can confirm my correct address for all correspondence is:

nosferatu1001

No. Active not passive

Any alleged debt is disputed and denied, and in any event the quantum is exaggerated and unrecoverable because you cannot claim debt collection (operational) costs twice. This was confirmed in the supreme court case of Parking Eye vs Beavis. 
I am however seeking debt advice, so you are required to cease processing my data for at least 30 days 
In addition, as part of the PAP for debt claims and the overriding objective, I require you to supply me with copies of the alleged contract, namely copies of the actual signage on site. A computer render is insufficient, I require actual photographs taken on or around the date of the alleged breach. 

But you already sent it, so asking afterwards doesnt help...

blakbruker

Should these challenges be in the first response to the LBC or should the "this is a deficient LBC please send a correct one" letter not be sent first?

nosferatu1001

Depends. Is their LBC deficient? If not, sending the "deficient" letter doesnt make much sense, does it!?

Grimghast

nosferatu1001 said:

No. Active not passive

Any alleged debt is disputed and denied, and in any event the quantum is exaggerated and unrecoverable because you cannot claim debt collection (operational) costs twice. This was confirmed in the supreme court case of Parking Eye vs Beavis. 
I am however seeking debt advice, so you are required to cease processing my data for at least 30 days 
In addition, as part of the PAP for debt claims and the overriding objective, I require you to supply me with copies of the alleged contract, namely copies of the actual signage on site. A computer render is insufficient, I require actual photographs taken on or around the date of the alleged breach. 

But you already sent it, so asking afterwards doesnt help...

Ye I guess I kind of jumped the gun a bit but didn’t want to keep pestering you all for every thing.
could I send what you put in addition to what I’ve sent already or would it be best to wait and see what response I get?

nosferatu1001

Wait and see. 

Grimghast

Ok thanks for your help 👍