CST letters' forum group thread

nosferatu1001

Well you know the next step in the court process, so you follow that until the end - hearing or they discontinue. 

northseajoe1

First of all, an apology... NO, actually first of all a thank you 'cos reading through this thread really brings home how much work you guys do. Sincerely: thank you.

Secondly, though, an apology, because questions like this have been answered before. The reason I'm double-checking is because (i) I'm in Scotland and (ii) I've clearly previously misunderstood what that means (iii) I'm not entirely clear what advice/answers given to others applies in Scotland. 

Background:  a single unjustified PCN (£60 --> £100) from Smart Parking back in Feb 2020, and I naively assumed that no action was required 'cos I'm in Scotland, and I wasn't the driver.  

Basically, I followed advice here (this ISN'T my case) : https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5720356/smart-parking-ltd-strothers-lane-inverness

Smart Parking Ltd, Strothers Lane, Inverness — MoneySavingExpert Forum

However, I see from BrownTrout's posts in August on this thread that some claims are being upheld in Scotland, and if I'd known that I'd have been a bit less blase with the original PCN back in February. I've now (yes, you've guessed it) received a CST Law letter regarding 'Unpaid Debt' of £170 under instruction from DRP as agents of Smart Parking. 

Now, I'm very happy to ignore debt collector's letters, but I'd appreciate any up-to-the-minute updates on how litigious Smart Parking actually are in Scotland,  and any advice on whether it's worth retracing my steps and taking additional action (eg complaining to the landowner British Rail). 

Umkomaas

Just ignore it. Smart are pretty benign on the court front. None of these CST/Smart threatograms have gone anywhere. Come back on a new thread of your own if you get anything resembling a Sheriff Court Claim (vanishingly unlikely). Bookmark this thread and drop in on it from time to time to see if there's been any movement in CST activity. 

northseajoe1

Umkomaas said:

Just ignore it. Smart are pretty benign on the court front. None of these CST/Smart threatograms have gone anywhere. Come back on a new thread of your own if you get anything resembling a Sheriff Court Claim (vanishingly unlikely). Bookmark this thread and drop in on it from time to time to see if there's been any movement in CST activity. 

 Many thanks.  

Old_Slobberchops

northseajoe1 said:

[..]

Secondly, though, an apology, because questions like this have been answered before. The reason I'm double-checking is because (i) I'm in Scotland and (ii) I've clearly previously misunderstood what that means (iii) I'm not entirely clear what advice/answers given to others applies in Scotland. 

LBCs have no meaning or legal status in Scotland as the legal process is completely different from Small Claims in English County Court. It can either be ignored or, probably better, a short, sharp reply to CST warning them that as a legal firm they should be aware of jurisdiction and a complaint will be sent to the SRA.

The court situation regarding parking tickets is Scotland is also very different. In short, single tickets are never pursued to court as the system is set up very different. The first you will know of court is the arrival of a sheriff officer at the door serving a Simple Procedure on you personally. This means two things. First no default judgement for wrong address, secondly it costs them around £80 to serve as it is a requirement that the SP is served in person. If you have moved, they need to find you. On top of that, they must pay the fee up front before issuing. So, costs are now £100 or more if they've had to trace you. The Simple Procedure process prohibits any costs at all being recovered for any claim under £300. This is designed to stop court being flooded by claims for trivial amounts. So to recover a £100 PCN they will out of pocket for solicitors, and £100 out of pocket for up front fees and service. This is why you never see claims for less than 5 tickets. So if you have a single ticket, you are safe from court - even if they know the name of the driver.

Smart Parking cases are handled by Mellicks in Scotland, not DRP or their misleading alter ego CST Law.

Old_Slobberchops

Umkomaas said:

Just ignore it. Smart are pretty benign on the court front. None of these CST/Smart threatograms have gone anywhere. Come back on a new thread of your own if you get anything resembling a Sheriff Court Claim (vanishingly unlikely). Bookmark this thread and drop in on it from time to time to see if there's been any movement in CST activity. 

Smart have been pretty active in court in Scotland in the last year. But only for multiple ticket cases. It's just not cost effective to pursue a single ticket due to the high up front costs in getting a claim up and running and the fact that no costs at all are allowed for claims under £300.

Coupon-mad

no costs at all are allowed for claims under £300.

Useful to know.  

The difficulty coming to Scotland is the ridiculously badly-advised decision to incorporate the POFA Schedule4 into the Transport Act, to give the parking firm scumbags 'keeper liability' (why?).  Did no-one point out the exponential rise in court cases that the POFA caused in E&W?

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/private-parking-firms-issue-15-new-tickets-every-minute-research-reveals/

They could always reverse that decision I suppose, if they decide that they don't want to enact it after all.  If someone points the above out to those Ministers in charge.  If not, the courts must brace themselves for multi-ticket cases galore, all citing keeper liability and going after the Scottish driving public like baying hounds chasing rabbits.

Also, if PPCs are incentivised to 'collect' more than one ticket per victim...to make it worthwhile to sue...you can guess what some might do.  It wouldn't be difficult to make sure the same car is actively targetted until it's caught a second time for parking on a crack in the pavement, especially in residential or office car parks where a permit can slip down...somehow...so easily...

Uptown_Boy

Old_Slobberchops said:

The first you will know of court is the arrival of a sheriff officer at the door serving a Simple Procedure on you personally. This means two things. First no default judgement for wrong address, secondly it costs them around £80 to serve as it is a requirement that the SP is served in person. If you have moved, they need to find you. On top of that, they must pay the fee up front before issuing. So, costs are now £100 or more if they've had to trace you. The Simple Procedure process prohibits any costs at all being recovered for any claim under £300. This is designed to stop court being flooded by claims for trivial amounts. So to recover a £100 PCN they will out of pocket for solicitors, and £100 out of pocket for up front fees and service. This is why you never see claims for less than 5 tickets. So if you have a single ticket, you are safe from court - even if they know the name of the driver.

Oxymoron? The procedure sounds far more complicated than MCOL. 😂😂

Old_Slobberchops

Coupon-mad said:

no costs at all are allowed for claims under £300.

Useful to know.  

The difficulty coming to Scotland is the ridiculously badly-advised decision to incorporate the POFA Schedule4 into the Transport Act, to give the parking firm scumbags 'keeper liability' (why?).  Did no-one point out the exponential rise in court cases that the POFA caused in E&W?

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/private-parking-firms-issue-15-new-tickets-every-minute-research-reveals/

They could always reverse that decision I suppose, if they decide that they don't want to enact it after all.  If someone points the above out to those Ministers in charge.  If not, the courts must brace themselves for multi-ticket cases galore, all citing keeper liability and going after the Scottish driving public like baying hounds chasing rabbits.

Also, if PPCs are incentivised to 'collect' more than one ticket per victim...to make it worthwhile to sue...you can guess what some might do.  It wouldn't be difficult to make sure the same car is actively targetted until it's caught a second time for parking on a crack in the pavement, especially in residential or office car parks where a permit can slip down...somehow...so easily...

Coupon-mad said:

no costs at all are allowed for claims under £300.

Useful to know.  

The difficulty coming to Scotland is the ridiculously badly-advised decision to incorporate the POFA Schedule4 into the Transport Act, to give the parking firm scumbags 'keeper liability' (why?).  Did no-one point out the exponential rise in court cases that the POFA caused in E&W?
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/private-parking-firms-issue-15-new-tickets-every-minute-research-reveals/

Loads of people sent in objections to keeper liability in the Transport Bill but to no avail. It's likely pressure came from Westminster that if the wanted the new independent appeals (there's none currently in Scotland other than joke-POPLA for drivers only and dodgy IAS) and mandatory CoP to apply in Scotland, they'd have to create a level playing field with England for all parties, including operators. Objections usually were acknowledged with a form letter that showed the ministers were utterly clueless and thought private parking tickets had the same legal status as council tickets.

" If not, the courts must brace themselves for multi-ticket cases galore, all citing keeper liability and going after the Scottish driving public like baying hounds chasing rabbits."

They already have that - I have 4 Smart cases in court at the moment. Fortunately, few people get multiple tickets. Most are just a single  simple error ticket - rather than persistent rogue parking - and the good news is that Scottish courts re not geared up to make it worth PPC pursuing to court. That will still apply even if keeper liability is implemented.

Old_Slobberchops

Uptown_Boy said:

Oxymoron? The procedure sounds far more complicated than MCOL. 😂😂

As it should be. MCOL is far too easy to get a default judgement if you move house - all you need is proof of posting. No need to bother if its the correct address. Claim forms should all be proof of service, not posting. The other stuff down the line can be proof of posting but not the initial claim form.