CST Law 'Unpaid Debt - Reminder Notice'

Chriso123

I have a notification supposedly from CST Law (originated by Euro Car Parks, then Debt Recovery Plus), which has all the typical legalistic wording designed to get a quick 'amicable' payment of £160. I can see why this might be happening in the pandemic, but that doesn't make it OK. What I would like to get clear about is whether the situation, payment-wise, is the same if I subsequently receive a Letter Before Claim as it is now, i.e. can one expect at that point just to pay up without it having increased? The letter talks about 'Statutory Costs and Court Fees' but that would be in respect of some pretty trivial admin by that stage. Does anyone have a feel for what they can reasonably do here, and how likely it is to become an LBC anyhow?
Also, regarding the original "offence", now just over 3 years ago (!), Euro Car Parks quietly increased the tariff, with the result that I keyed in all my usual details at the machine (you dial an amount) only to find that that amount corresponded to a shorter stay. Aren't they obliged to display a notice alerting users to the tariff rise?

Le_Kirk

Best advice is to read the NEWBIE sticky second post, then pick out a few similar threads to yours (either  Euro Car Parks or CST Law) and see the same questions asked and answered.  You could also ask Auntie Google about Civil Procedure rules, the amount it costs to file a claim, how much it costs to have a claim heard and how much the PPC can claim as solicitor costs (clue ZERO), how much they are allowed to add on as debt management/admin or contractual costs (clue ZERO) but they still do and get whopped in court.

Chriso123

Le_Kirk, Thanks for that. I'm hearing that I can perhaps afford to be fairly bullish, at least initially. The wording of the letter suggests to me that they expect to make their money by scaring people into paying up rather than by serious legal activity. The letter itself is ambiguous as to who it is really from. Letter from Debt Recovery Plus on CST Law headed paper, "signed" CST Law. All helps the general scariness agenda.

Le_Kirk

All the more reason to "take no action" rather then ignore, file letters and keep for evidence of unreasonable behaviour if/when it comes to a court hearing.

Chriso123

Interesting point about never phoning the debt recovery company. Is there a specific reason for that (e.g. they then have your number)?

Umkomaas

Chriso123 said:

Interesting point about never phoning the debt recovery company. Is there a specific reason for that (e.g. they then have your number)?

Nothing to do with them getting your phone number (141 hides that), but you'll simply expose yourself to a barrage of sh|t and abuse, trying to break you into paying. They will have absolutely no interest whatsoever in anything you have to say. Thinking you can 'roll them over' in a phone call, remember they dish this stuff 24/7 - it's their day job and how they earn their wages!

Le_Kirk

A phone call is worth the paper it is printed on!

Chriso123

Interesting. I took an entirely different approach, and was really friendly, keen not to spark the least conflict, and really trying to get from her as much information as possible, starting with what the alleged offence was, and when. I wanted to see what I could pick up from the conversation really. "Know thine enemy" and all that. She was well enough trained to insist that the only thing to do was to pay up, and that an LBA letter was highly likely, but then she would say that wouldn't she. She was maybe just glad to have a basically friendly person on the line for bit, but then she seemed keen enough to get me off it again as she perhaps started to work out what I was up to :-)

MothballsWallet

Umkomaas said:

Chriso123 said:

Interesting point about never phoning the debt recovery company. Is there a specific reason for that (e.g. they then have your number)?

Nothing to do with them getting your phone number (1471 hides that), but you'll simply expose yourself to a barrage of sh|t and abuse, trying to break you into paying. They will have absolutely no interest whatsoever in anything you have to say. Thinking you can 'roll them over' in a phone call, remember they dish this stuff 24/7 - it's their day job and how they earn their wages!

Just for info: you can dial 141 before a number to withhold it (1471 is last number redial, I think), but this doesn't always work: some companies' switchboards are able to override the "withhold my number" option and still get your number anyway (it's to do with the phone system protocols and how this option is implemented by the receiving organisation's switchboard).

Disclaimer: I used to work for telephone companies (not BT/Sky, etc) and remember some of  the stuff about the different phone protocols.

Chriso123

Has anyone tried the "divide and conquer" approach of simply paying part of it outright, thereby reducing the amount to a sum not worth fighting over? So, for instance, my £160 "debt" drops from treble to double figures if I pay £65 (way less than £160, and £95 looks much less like a fight worth fighting, on their side).

KeithP

Chriso123 said:

Has anyone tried the "divide and conquer" approach of simply paying part of it outright, thereby reducing the amount to a sum not worth fighting over? So, for instance, my £160 "debt" drops from treble to double figures if I pay £65 (way less than £160, and £95 looks much less like a fight worth fighting, on their side).

Yes of course it has been tried.

Often they will not accept the payment - returning the cheque for example.

By offering to pay anything, you automatically go on the 'suckers list' and will be pursued even harder because they will see your part payment as from a gullible person running scared.