CST letters' forum group thread

Umkomaas

Lockable said:

Umkomaas said:

Which court please?  Judge's name please? (Judge Iyer, perhaps?). 

Oxoford.

Devlin I believe, don't have it on front of me at the mo.

Judge Devlin appears to know his (private parking) onions. Do a forum search on his name and see if he's been previous involved in private parking cases. His name is vaguely familiar. 

Lockable

In addition, I've just checked the response they gave to my SAR & the response is this:

" I refer to your recent request for access to the personal information we hold about you. In satisfaction of that request I confirm that the following information was supplied to us by Debt Recovery Plus acting as agents for Conkai Security Ltd when we were instructed in this matter.

In addition, we have now been supplied with the attached documentation collected by our client.

Yours sincerely

Richard Martin"

 Can I weaponise this information re: the DRP connection, against them if it does somehow end up in court?

Also requested but not supplied was the basis of the instruction given to them to act in this matter.

 

Lockable

Umkomaas said:

Lockable said:

Umkomaas said:

Which court please?  Judge's name please? (Judge Iyer, perhaps?). 

Oxoford.

Devlin I believe, don't have it on front of me at the mo.

Judge Devlin appears to know his (private parking) onions. Do a forum search on his name and see if he's been previous involved in private parking cases. His name is vaguely familiar. 

Good tip, a quick look reveals he seems to have no patience for these vexatious !!!!!!!

Umkomaas

Lockable said:

Umkomaas said:

Lockable said:

Umkomaas said:

Which court please?  Judge's name please? (Judge Iyer, perhaps?). 

Oxoford.

Devlin I believe, don't have it on front of me at the mo.

Judge Devlin appears to know his (private parking) onions. Do a forum search on his name and see if he's been previous involved in private parking cases. His name is vaguely familiar. 

Good tip, a quick look reveals he seems to have no patience for these vexatious !!!!!!!

Knowledge can be power!

beamerguy

Lockable said:

beamerguy said:

Was this a claim made by CST ?

Yes. They are the company that have pursued it to court.

As I said a few companies have had a crack as the original incident is 2015. DRP then BW legal & finally CST

CST .... I think you are right, the courts are fed up with these rubbish claims and legals who don't have a clue.  Wonder what CST will dream up next

Lockable

beamerguy said:

Lockable said:

beamerguy said:

Was this a claim made by CST ?

Yes. They are the company that have pursued it to court.

As I said a few companies have had a crack as the original incident is 2015. DRP then BW legal & finally CST

CST .... I think you are right, the courts are fed up with these rubbish claims and legals who don't have a clue.  Wonder what CST will dream up next

I'm hoping for it to be struck out, but I guess they could come back with something, tho I can't imagine they'll satisfy the demands in the letter. If they try but fail will the court make a call on that based on what CST submit?

beamerguy

Lockable said:

beamerguy said:

Lockable said:

beamerguy said:

Was this a claim made by CST ?

Yes. They are the company that have pursued it to court.

As I said a few companies have had a crack as the original incident is 2015. DRP then BW legal & finally CST

CST .... I think you are right, the courts are fed up with these rubbish claims and legals who don't have a clue.  Wonder what CST will dream up next

I'm hoping for it to be struck out, but I guess they could come back with something, tho I can't imagine they'll satisfy the demands in the letter. If they try but fail will the court make a call on that based on what CST submit?

Given what we have seen from CST, all they can offer is nonsensical rubbish.
Oxford court is good and doubtful the judge will let them off the hook.

But hey, look at their reply to you

" I refer to your recent request for access to the personal information we hold about you. In satisfaction of that request I confirm that the following information was supplied to us by Debt Recovery Plus acting as agents for Conkai Security Ltd when we were instructed in this matter."

DRP are a non entity in this,  Only Conkai as the owner of the debt can instruct CST
Information gained by Conkai can be passed to DRP but no permission was given by you for DRP to pass your data to CST

Lockable

beamerguy said:

DRP are a non entity in this,  Only Conkai as the owner of the debt can instruct CST
Information gained by Conkai can be passed to DRP but no permission was given by you for DRP to pass your data to CST

It that a pre-reqisite? Can Conkai instruct DRP to pass info to CST?

If not, does this move skewer CST's position? it a breach of the DPA?

Coupon-mad

Lockable said:

An update from me. After sending an SAR to CST I received a response, fair enough.  In the meantime I received another threat letter from BW Legal, they were involved early on but seem to have gone away. They were unaware that this was already at the court stage & an SAR to them elicited a total climb-down. This arrived today. Seems to be an order from the court demanding they make their case again & prove that it   a) demonstrates they have proper signage ( they don't ) & b) that they have complied with POFA '12 ( they definitely haven't ) Struck out if they can't show a stronger case. Is this a normal part of the court's behaviour? Are they weeding out the chaff to save court time?  

What a clued up Judge, you say it's DJ Devlin from Oxford - hooray for him or her for understanding everything like this!

I don't think this case should stay on this group thread because you are dealing with a court claim and will have deadlines. 

Can you start a thread about this court claim (if you don't already have one, don't have two going about the same PCN).  That Order is gold!

Lockable

Coupon-mad said:

Can you start a thread about this court claim (if you don't already have one, don't have two going about the same PCN).  That Order is gold!

 I placed it here as I'd contributed to the CST thread earlier, but I'll dig out the original thread tomorrow.

Am I right in thinking this sort of letter is a fairly new development for court proceedings & hasn't happened a great deal previously? I'll take it as a good sign if that's the case.