CST letters' forum group thread

OnTheSuperRun

Troubled42 said:

beamerguy said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Read a little more carefully - they add £15 per ticket, meaning its £185 x 2. 

Yes, i have made that change to the above.   

I guess CST are doing this so they can experience first hand, a court spanking

Very good sir!
I've tidied slightly and I am ready to submit to CST.

Re PCN Refs no: XX, XX, XX

Dear Sir or Madam,

                                    I write in relation to the above PCN reference numbers and in response to your recent ‘Letter Before Claim’.

I have only just received this as you have sent correspondence to my old address.
Therefore, please send any further correspondence to me at [Address Here].

Please note 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. Please respond to confirm this.

I have submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to your client as I have insufficient information to date.

I will be complaining to the SRA and FCA as you are purporting to be sending a letter before claim, acting on behalf of an entity that I have no contract with. I require a copy of any contract you think I have with Debt Recovery Plus.

You have claimed an additional £45 for ‘debt recovery’,  which you state is included in the charge you claim. That equates to £15 per parking ticket which is unlawful. If as you say this is included, then that also leaves an unlawful charge of £70 per parking ticket. You have already stated that the £45 is for recovery so please explain your legal authority to increase each ticket price by £70?

Please take note that your claim goes against the ruling of the Supreme court, POFA2012 and the double recovery rules of the County Court.  Therefore this can only be deemed as Abuse of Process and as such your claim is unreliable.

Should you proceed further, I will ask the court to strike out your clam as Abuse of Process. I will show your ‘Letter before Claim’ in court together along with this response. You are of course at liberty to respond to me giving your legal authority to add such amounts.

My costs schedule will be presented to the court.

Please let me know when this ‘claim’ has been discontinued, given its unlawful precedence.

All good?
Another interesting development is that my relative has informed me of a 4th! ticket... yet this strangely isn't on the claim form although there has been a few debt crawler letters for it months ago..

@beamerguy Would you recommend this approach for my LBC in Scotland?

beamerguy

OnTheSuperRun said:

Troubled42 said:

beamerguy said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Read a little more carefully - they add £15 per ticket, meaning its £185 x 2. 

Yes, i have made that change to the above.   

I guess CST are doing this so they can experience first hand, a court spanking

Very good sir!
I've tidied slightly and I am ready to submit to CST.

Re PCN Refs no: XX, XX, XX

Dear Sir or Madam,

                                    I write in relation to the above PCN reference numbers and in response to your recent ‘Letter Before Claim’.

I have only just received this as you have sent correspondence to my old address.
Therefore, please send any further correspondence to me at [Address Here].

Please note 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. Please respond to confirm this.

I have submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to your client as I have insufficient information to date.

I will be complaining to the SRA and FCA as you are purporting to be sending a letter before claim, acting on behalf of an entity that I have no contract with. I require a copy of any contract you think I have with Debt Recovery Plus.

You have claimed an additional £45 for ‘debt recovery’,  which you state is included in the charge you claim. That equates to £15 per parking ticket which is unlawful. If as you say this is included, then that also leaves an unlawful charge of £70 per parking ticket. You have already stated that the £45 is for recovery so please explain your legal authority to increase each ticket price by £70?

Please take note that your claim goes against the ruling of the Supreme court, POFA2012 and the double recovery rules of the County Court.  Therefore this can only be deemed as Abuse of Process and as such your claim is unreliable.

Should you proceed further, I will ask the court to strike out your clam as Abuse of Process. I will show your ‘Letter before Claim’ in court together along with this response. You are of course at liberty to respond to me giving your legal authority to add such amounts.

My costs schedule will be presented to the court.

Please let me know when this ‘claim’ has been discontinued, given its unlawful precedence.

All good?
Another interesting development is that my relative has informed me of a 4th! ticket... yet this strangely isn't on the claim form although there has been a few debt crawler letters for it months ago..

@beamerguy Would you recommend this approach for my LBC in Scotland?

Yes, the simple answer is that CST don't know what they are doing and no doubt with you, they think DRP is the claimant. So follow what is being said on this thread and ASK THEM

Understand that CST and DRP are scam bed follows, both talking rubbish.
So far, we have not seen a reply from CST .... how can they defend such nonsensical stuff ??

supreme_addict

Hey there. I received some obnoxious letters from CST Law too and want to check I understand what to do correctly, though I have read the whole thread. Have posted the pictures of the letters inline. 
1) an LBC from CST law claiming £370, which is comprised of two £170 charges and a £30 admin fee. As I understand it, there is a legal precedent which makes the maximum charge each £100. this makes the £370 entirely unlawful and Abuse of Process? 
2) The original PCNs from SMART parking, both of which say "leaving £100 to be paid" in the grey box on the right AND also mention a £10 admin fee which i think is unlawful, which I presume leaves an unlawful £70 on each PCN unaccounted for as described above.
3) The LBC which says that DRP have instructed them which as I understand is nonsense since I have no contract with them and I they cant issue a claim for a debt they dont own?
4) Letters from DRP saying 'unauthorised parking' which is BS since the management and owners authorised me as detailed below.
I was going to write something like this to CST Law, mostly stolen/copy pasted from other people on here. Many thanks. 

To whom it may concern, 
This serves as formal response to your letters dated 20/11/2020 to [me] pertaining to the following PCNs.
[PCN numbers and dates]
It is my understanding that your client Debt Recovery Plus as the agent of SMART Parking has instructed you to begin legal proceedings against me.
I am seeking debt advice but deny any and all debt. This case must therefore be put on hold for 30 days in accordance with the PAP for debt claims 2017. Please confirm response to this. I have submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to SMART PARKING as I have insufficient information to date.
In addition, I will be complaining to the SRA and FCA as you are purporting to be sending a letter before claim, acting on behalf of an entity that I have no contract with. I require a copy of any contract you think I have with Debt Recovery Plus. You have claimed an additional £30 for ‘debt recovery’,  which you state is included in the charge you claim. That equates to £15 per parking ticket which is unlawful. If as you say this is included, then that also leaves an unlawful charge of £70 per parking ticket. please see below:
In a very recent case, District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from BWLegal that included a false amount of £60
Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019
IT IS ORDERED THAT
The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.
"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover,
This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998 "
Please take note that your claim goes against the ruling of the Supreme court, POFA2012 and the double recovery rules of the County Court.  Therefore this can only be deemed as Abuse of Process and as such your claim is unreliable.
I should mention at this point that the express permission of the manager of the venue, and the owner of the venue was given for vehicle to be parked there on both occasions, and their authority as the proprietors of the land and venue supersedes any authority SMART parking may have had at the time as their authority was granted to them by the management and owners. The management and owners of the venue have corroborated this in writing to me and I attach a scan of the letter in which they confirm this to my email.
I have also attached a V5C to this email to provide evidence that I am in fact the registered keeper. My address has changed so please send further correspondence to the following address.
[my address here]
Any unsolicited telephone calls, or visitation by yourselves, your clients or your representatives or any other interested party will be considered harassment and dealt within accordance with UK law. This address is to be used for written correspondence only. Please let me know when this ‘claim’ has been discontinued, given its unlawful precedence. Should you proceed further, I will ask the court to strike out your clam as Abuse of Process. I will show your ‘Letter before Claim’ in court together along with this response. You are of course at liberty to respond to me giving your legal authority to add such amounts.
Regards
[my name]

Sorry for super l o n g post. TL;DR My plan would be to send this to CST law demanding they justify their unlawful extra charges, ask how they can be instructed by DRP when I have no contract with DRP, as well as sending the SAR asking for various things (detailed in the email draft attached). Personal data has been redacted. Should I leave out the bit about having permission from management?

Coupon-mad

Makes me laugh (better than crying) that these scum debt recovery firms think they can layer £70 on top of each PCN (unlawful), then in the case of CST Law, ANOTHER imaginary, equally unlawful thirty quid on top which pretends to be the costs of 'recovery letters'. 

These are the exact same (minor, less than £15) operational costs of the letter-based business model, that the Supreme Court said 'justifies' the original, inflated PCN in the first place.

I sincerely hope the new PAS232 and MHCLG Framework see this for what it is.  In no other industry could you charge 3 times for the core cost of the 'service'.  The sad thing is, I am sure plenty of victims pay this extortionate amount of money, or phone up and get talked/bullied into it.

Lockable

I've been in the same situation as many others here regarding CST. Got all the letters, the same DRP claims etc. What I want to add is that the company behind the original fake invoice, Conkai have proceeded to the small claims track & I'm now balls deep in that process.
So it is possible that this can end up going all the way to court claim.
It's tedious, & they are on very weak ground with their claim but I intend to fight it all the way. 
Have currently just returned the DQ & now have to wait for the sewer dwellers next move.
If there is any insight on what my next move could be it'd be gratefully received.

Umkomaas

Lockable said:

I've been in the same situation as many others here regarding CST. Got all the letters, the same DRP claims etc. What I want to add is that the company behind the original fake invoice, Conkai have proceeded to the small claims track & I'm now balls deep in that process.
So it is possible that this can end up going all the way to court claim.
It's tedious, & they are on very weak ground with their claim but I intend to fight it all the way. 
Have currently just returned the DQ & now have to wait for the sewer dwellers next move.
If there is any insight on what my next move could be it'd be gratefully received.

Is this directly connected to your other Conkai thread?  If so, please post on that. You seemed to be at the court stage some months ago, then ........ radio silence. Once the court is involved then this general CST thread should be vacated and any further advice/information placed in a bespoke thread.  So if it is the same case, please continue on your original thread. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6186095/counterclaim-for-vexatious-litigation-to-a-ppc/p5

Lockable

Umkomaas said:

Is this directly connected to your other Conkai thread?  If so, please post on that. You seemed to be at the court stage some months ago, then ........ radio silence. Once the court is involved then this general CST thread should be vacated and any further advice/information placed in a bespoke thread.  So if it is the same case, please continue on your original thread. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6186095/counterclaim-for-vexatious-litigation-to-a-ppc/p5

Yes this is connected to the other thread, but I post here as it also connects to this CST thread.
I posted because many commentators claim this doesn't end up at the small claims court but it can & has in my case.
That's all really. It wasn't necessarily a further plea for help, more to helpfully add something relevant. 

Umkomaas

Lockable said:

Umkomaas said:

Is this directly connected to your other Conkai thread?  If so, please post on that. You seemed to be at the court stage some months ago, then ........ radio silence. Once the court is involved then this general CST thread should be vacated and any further advice/information placed in a bespoke thread.  So if it is the same case, please continue on your original thread. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6186095/counterclaim-for-vexatious-litigation-to-a-ppc/p5

Yes this is connected to the other thread, but I post here as it also connects to this CST thread.
I posted because many commentators claim this doesn't end up at the small claims court but it can & has in my case.
That's all really. It wasn't necessarily a further plea for help, more to helpfully add something relevant. 

Understand.  Are you going solo now on your court case?

Lockable

Umkomaas said:

Understand.  Are you going solo now on your court case?

I've returned the DQ following guidance read in the Newbies thread. Not certain what the next step will be, their claim has no basis but I suppose we have to go thru the motions until someone finally puts them out of their misery. 

Umkomaas

Lockable said:

Umkomaas said:

Understand.  Are you going solo now on your court case?

I've returned the DQ following guidance read in the Newbies thread. Not certain what the next step will be, their claim has no basis but I suppose we have to go thru the motions until someone finally puts them out of their misery. 

That about sums it up. I don't think I've ever seen a Conkai case get anywhere near a courtroom, but you need to go through the motions .... or lose. Always help on your own thread if you need it.  Keep jumping the hurdles! 🙂