CST letters' forum group thread

nosferatu1001

Use the info@ as thats all they have. Require them to confirm they willl pass this to their data protection officer.
A read receipt isnt a g'tee. 
Do that today.  2 emails. 

Apollo2020

nosferatu1001 said:

Use the info@ as thats all they have. Require them to confirm they willl pass this to their data protection officer.
A read receipt isnt a g'tee. 
Do that today.  2 emails. 

Hi thxs I did as suggested x2 emails earlier today 
Is it worth raising the issue with the Parking App company I used?
x1 Ticket was from about 4 yrs ago -
I did not arrive early or overstay the allotted time
but Conkai claimed I parked in the wrong bay 
As I used a fast booking service via a Parking app I did not see the follow up email as I was already on the way to the conference that said in its small print only park in 'x' bays - the signage on site did not say that and I disputed the PCN on the phone as I had already paid the parking fee via the app using their fast booking service and advert for the parking spaces on the parking app did not specify it was only for specific bays 
only the follow up email did
BMPA when it was running suggested complaining to the Parking App company
As lots of ppl were being confused / misled this way 
Is it worth raising the issue with the Parking App company I used as I still have a working account?
Thank you

Umkomaas

Is it worth raising the issue with the Parking App company I used as I still have a working account?

Why not?  It won't do any harm, but I wouldn't anticipate any miracle. 

Coupon-mad

That will be part of a good defence (obviously using the forum template). 

Legal authority for the fact a term you don't see till later can't be bolted on to a concluded contract, is Olley v Marlborough Court:
https://swarb.co.uk/olley-v-marlborough-court-ca-1949/

It would also breach the law on distance contracts, in terms of the informational requirements:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/contents/made

Troubled42

Another relative of mine has tangled with Smart Parking and has received the so called LBC from CST Law.
This is a collection of 3 alleged claims. As far as we are aware, tickets were obtained for all but I won't go into detail here just yet in respect of this thread.
Letter received 9th July. Only just been passed on by a neighbour as this was sent to the old address..
SAR to Smart parking - written & ready to be sent tomorrow. (word for word from newbies thread)
Email requesting hold/seeking debt advice to CST Law - Will be sent when appropriate (again, wording taken from newbies. Also updated them on the new address)

beamerguy

CST at it again ......  somebody should be talking to them about their lack of knowledge and porky pies

1: DRP CANNOT INSTRUCT THEM, it's not their debt.   WRONG ENTITY CST ??

2: £170 is a fairy tale figure as the £70 add on is a fake and unlawful

3: They say that the total includes £45 for costs and debt collection and recovery ?

So what is the fake £70 per ticket for ???  At least they cannot say it's debt recovery as they have included £45 for that ?   SO WHAT IS IT

ANSWER = A SCAM and you do not owe £555.00 and that is ABUSE OF PROCESS so CST can now expect a court spanking if it goes to court.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

You need to reply to a LBA, so ask them about the above and what is their legal authority to add £70 per ticket and £45 for recovery.

They have no legal authority so what is said by CST is very important if they reply. 

More importantly, if they issue a claim will they still tell these lies, they are subject to the new Civil Procedure Rules (6th April 2020) and state with a signature ....

" I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth"

Coupon-mad

SAR to Smart parking - written & ready to be sent tomorrow. (word for word from newbies thread)
Email requesting hold/seeking debt advice to CST Law - Will be sent when appropriate (again, wording taken from newbies. Also updated them on the new address)

And both times, giving the new address and telling them to erase the old one!

SAR is best sent by email of course, as is an address rectification notice - to the DPO as per the privacy page.

Sophaloaf23

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77441033#Comment_77441033

Dear All, I have today posted an update to one of my original threads (see link)  having now received a letter from CST with an LBC. No response pack included, just the letter . One of the posters recommended I come here - so here I am !  

I received 4 tickets over the course of three days. This letter is for two separate tickets and the last Unpaid debt letters seem to be grouping them together instead of treating them as individual charges.

i an expecting another letter regarding the other two tickets. 

I’m currently going through all the other posts for what to do next but wanted to post the letter here for the benefit of the group. 

Thanks  

beamerguy

As I just said on your thread. read my post ..... two upwards on here

Troubled42

beamerguy said:

CST at it again ......  somebody should be talking to them about their lack of knowledge and porky pies

1: DRP CANNOT INSTRUCT THEM, it's not their debt.   WRONG ENTITY CST ??

2: £170 is a fairy tale figure as the £70 add on is a fake and unlawful

3: They say that the total includes £45 for costs and debt collection and recovery ?

So what is the fake £70 per ticket for ???  At least they cannot say it's debt recovery as they have included £45 for that ?   SO WHAT IS IT

ANSWER = A SCAM and you do not owe £555.00 and that is ABUSE OF PROCESS so CST can now expect a court spanking if it goes to court.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

You need to reply to a LBA, so ask them about the above and what is their legal authority to add £70 per ticket and £45 for recovery.

They have no legal authority so what is said by CST is very important if they reply. 

More importantly, if they issue a claim will they still tell these lies, they are subject to the new Civil Procedure Rules (6th April 2020) and state with a signature ....

" I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth"

I've just wrote this for a relative in response to CST. 
How does this sound?

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 [insert 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.
‘Debt Recovery Plus’ cannot start a court claim and you should be aware of this. How can they instruct you if this isn’t their own debt?
On each ticket you have falsely added an additional £70 charge which is unlawful and exceeds the £100 ATA CoP ceiling which is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA.
You have included an additional £45 for ‘debt recovery’, further adding value that the additional £70 per ticket on top of this is unlawful… unless you can explain otherwise?
This is simply an abuse of process.
Please let me know when this ‘claim’ has been discontinued, given its unlawful precedence.