CST letters' forum group thread

beamerguy

Cheen18 said:

Each ticket is quoted as £170 so £850 total but looking now from my texts to the pizza shop I had another letter before claim in July 2020 and ignored that. That one had 4 tickets. I’ve ignored them up to this point so I really only want to engage if necessary 

NO NO, £170 is the scam charge AND THAT'S A LIE BY CST .... normal crap from them
That tells us each ticket is £100 and not a penny more.  5 x £100 is £500.  CST ARE SCAMMING YOU AN EXTRA £350 ????   The courts do not approve of scammers

Go and get that letter from the Pizza shop and send it to CST and at the same time ask to explain the £350 and of their legal authority to add it.

Umkomaas

As your case is in Scotland, just follow the advice given in the latter stages of this thread. Just take a lead from that shown by @northseajoe1 and do the same as he has done. Stop panicking, you have to let this take its course. Other than paying their stupid amount, there is nothing that will bring this rapidly to a stop. We have no magic bullet for you, other than following the advice already given. You and your case are no different to any of the other CST/Smart/Scotland ones on here. 

northseajoe1

Umkomaas said:

As your case is in Scotland, just follow the advice given in the latter stages of this thread. Just take a lead from that shown by @northseajoe1 and do the same as he has done. Stop panicking, you have to let this take its course. Other than paying their stupid amount, there is nothing that will bring this rapidly to a stop. We have no magic bullet for you, other than following the advice already given. You and your case are no different to any of the other CST/Smart/Scotland ones on here. 

I'm not disagreeing with you @Umkomaas, but just for clarity:  my situation is different to @Cheen18, as they appear happy to admit that they were the driver.  I'm not (because I wasn't, if you see what I mean). 

I therefore have an additional layer of NTK-related insulation.

Umkomaas

I think they need to think very carefully about what they are doing in the context of identifying the driver, but regardless, what CST are threatening in regards to the PD, is the same as your case and they could do a lot worse than follow your lead. But, as always here, we take the horse to water ......

Radgieweegie

Apologies for going cold the past week I meant to follow this up. SAR pending with smart parking ltd. Looks like northseajoe1 has taken the lead. Makes such a difference being able to bump heads and discuss this with folks in the same situation. I'm going to borrow heavily from your complaint northseajoe1 and get that sent, along with something similar to my MP. 

beamerguy

CST ADD FAKE AMOUNTS TO THEIR CLAIMS

It is very important that you read this judgement by DDJ Jackson who is now HHJ Jackson, a very senior judge.  This makes reference to the fake add-on which Judge Jackson states is abuse of process.   Whilst this particular case relates to Excel, IT APPLIES to all claims where fake amounts are added.  You can quote this case ... EXCEL v WILKINSON

EXCEL v WILKINSON ..... claim struck out for ABUSE OF PROCESS.  DDJ Jackson who is now HHJ Jackson made this ruling.  
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

D_P_Dance

Read this from Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

and copy the correspondence to the SRA, it is time they put a stop to this deception by an officer of the court. .

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/instructing/your-right-to-complain/

Radgieweegie

beamerguy said:

CST ADD FAKE AMOUNTS TO THEIR CLAIMS

It is very important that you read this judgement by DDJ Jackson who is now HHJ Jackson, a very senior judge.  This makes reference to the fake add-on which Judge Jackson states is abuse of process.   Whilst this particular case relates to Excel, IT APPLIES to all claims where fake amounts are added.  You can quote this case ... EXCEL v WILKINSON

EXCEL v WILKINSON ..... claim struck out for ABUSE OF PROCESS.  DDJ Jackson who is now HHJ Jackson made this ruling.  
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

the dropbox file is deleted.

Umkomaas

Radgieweegie said:

beamerguy said:

CST ADD FAKE AMOUNTS TO THEIR CLAIMS

It is very important that you read this judgement by DDJ Jackson who is now HHJ Jackson, a very senior judge.  This makes reference to the fake add-on which Judge Jackson states is abuse of process.   Whilst this particular case relates to Excel, IT APPLIES to all claims where fake amounts are added.  You can quote this case ... EXCEL v WILKINSON

EXCEL v WILKINSON ..... claim struck out for ABUSE OF PROCESS.  DDJ Jackson who is now HHJ Jackson made this ruling.  
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

the dropbox file is deleted.

It's now this one:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Although reading your link, digit by digit, your link seems identical to mine, my link works for me, yours doesn't - go figure. Maybe a mutant space somewhere?  

Have a go with my link and see what happens. 

Coupon-mad

It may be because I replaced the original link with a new version, and overwrote it.  The new version with her first name redacted is the right one.