CST letters' forum group thread

Lajo90

Timeouts said:

Lajo90 said:

  Hi All
I have received a letter before claim as attached. There is no email address and it's asking me to submit a form.

I've been reading through the chain but I'm still very confused on what I have to do. So I send a SAR to euro car parks? And then what exactly do I write to CST? Also once both have come back to me what are the next steps, does this still go to court? Any help would be appreciated. 

As you can see on this thread, CST constantly fail to get it right

They are saying you failed to pay and go on to say THE CHARGE is £170 ???

No parking ticket is £170 ???? CST have a way with words that makes their claim nonsensical

We know they have added a fake £70 which they cannot explain ?

So, you must reply saying two things

1: You deny any debt
2: You require their legal authority to add an unknown amount of £70

They have no legal excuse to add fake amounts.  They may attempt a feeble excuse that it is debt collector charges. Euro use DRP as a debt collector.  The feeble excuse is blown out the water when you read this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6280159/debt-recovery-plus-and-trace-advertise-no-win-no-fee-to-parking-firms#latest

So, what will CST reply with, there is nothing they can substantiate for the fake £70

THIS IS A FAKE CLAIM.   We also know that CST are currently being investigated by the SRA

Thank you so much! I will email CST with the above. I have emailed euro car parks with my SAR. Will keep others posted of what happens. 

F_CST

I received a CST letter which appears identical to others received recently. The forum wont let me post a link yet.

It relates to an overstay of 13 minutes at a fast food restaurant by a car which I am hirer of. I am not the only driver of this car nor the only driver named on the insurance, but as this happened nearly 18 months ago I can’t remember who the driver was. The NtK didn’t comply with PoFA so I could have ended this at appeal stage but stupidly ignored the letters – I won’t make the same mistake again.

I applied for SAR and surprisingly received a response from MET within 24 hours. They have photos of the car entering and leaving, along with the letters they sent out (no letters from the debt collection agencies are included). I asked for photos of the signage from the car park but they have only included an image of a generic sign rather than one in situ.

I have complained to the retail outlet but no joy so far. I will contact CST next week to advise I am taking debt advice and so they will need to apply an additional 30 days, plus I will ask what the £70 additional charges are for.

My questions are:

1.       Do I advise CST the NtK wasn’t compliant and so I can’t pursued as hirer to discourage further action? Or do I keep that back for court?

2.       If it gets to court, is the burden on MET to prove who the driver was? I can’t see how anyone including me can prove who was driving - certainly the photos don’t help in any way. I assume my case would be improved if I could categorically deny I was driving but as I don’t know for sure so I don’t feel hugely comfortable with this – I assume it’s reasonable to not know who was driving as this is actually the truth?

3.       Is the £70 additional charge a sufficient reason for the whole claim to be dismissed at court?

4.       Is the fact that MET have failed to show the sign from the car park sufficient for the case to be dismissed? How can anyone know what the sign said at the time, or whether it was legible? The generic picture they have provided has small print which isn’t legible in their image, let alone from a car.

Thanks in advance.

F_CST

F_CST said:

I received a CST letter which appears identical to others received recently. The forum wont let me post a link yet.

It relates to an overstay of 13 minutes at a fast food restaurant by a car which I am hirer of. I am not the only driver of this car nor the only driver named on the insurance, but as this happened nearly 18 months ago I can’t remember who the driver was. The NtK didn’t comply with PoFA so I could have ended this at appeal stage but stupidly ignored the letters – I won’t make the same mistake again.

I applied for SAR and surprisingly received a response from MET within 24 hours. They have photos of the car entering and leaving, along with the letters they sent out (no letters from the debt collection agencies are included). I asked for photos of the signage from the car park but they have only included an image of a generic sign rather than one in situ.

I have complained to the retail outlet but no joy so far. I will contact CST next week to advise I am taking debt advice and so they will need to apply an additional 30 days, plus I will ask what the £70 additional charges are for.

My questions are:

1.       Do I advise CST the NtK wasn’t compliant and so I can’t pursued as hirer to discourage further action? Or do I keep that back for court?

2.       If it gets to court, is the burden on MET to prove who the driver was? I can’t see how anyone including me can prove who was driving - certainly the photos don’t help in any way. I assume my case would be improved if I could categorically deny I was driving but as I don’t know for sure so I don’t feel hugely comfortable with this – I assume it’s reasonable to not know who was driving as this is actually the truth?

3.       Is the £70 additional charge a sufficient reason for the whole claim to be dismissed at court?

4.       Is the fact that MET have failed to show the sign from the car park sufficient for the case to be dismissed? How can anyone know what the sign said at the time, or whether it was legible? The generic picture they have provided has small print which isn’t legible in their image, let alone from a car.

Thanks in advance.

Not sure how to edit posts, but to confirm this a LETTER BEFORE CLAIM giving 30 days to respond and containing the financial forms, just like others have received 

Coupon-mad

1 - yes, do that now 
2 - yes, and MET have never sued anyone so their evidence is likely to be crap 
3 - no, not unless your local court is Leeds or Bradford
4 - no, they’ll have signage images and you can ask CST for those now, under the pre-action protocol. 

You can also change the image date on Google Street view and have a virtual walk round, most years images are under the arrow top left.

F_CST

Thank you for the advice Coupon. If MET have never sued before do you think the LBC is just bluster and the matter is likely to be dropped whatever I do?

In any event, could you please confirm if this response to CST is appropriate:

Dear Sirs,

I have received your letter before claim for PCN number xx. The alleged debt is disputed and denied, and in any event the quantum is exaggerated and unrecoverable because you cannot claim debt collection (operational) costs twice. This was confirmed in the supreme court case of Parking Eye vs Beavis.

I am however seeking debt advice, so you are required to cease processing my data for at least 30 days. 

In addition, as part of the PAP for debt claims and the overriding objective, I require you to supply me with copies of the alleged contract, namely copies of the actual signage on site. A computer render is insufficient, I require actual photographs taken on or around the date of the alleged breach. 

Reason for dispute (but not limited to):

MET have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and make no claim to comply with the Act. Namely, but not limited to, the Notice to Hirer fails to inform me that by virtue of paragraph 14(5), unpaid parking charges may be recovered from the hirer. Additionally, I, as hirer, was not provided with a copy of the hire agreement nor a statement from the vehicle-hire firm within the relevant period, as required by paragraph 14(2) of the Act. Consequently, liability for the alleged breach cannot be transferred from the driver to the hirer.

I do not know who the driver was, and am willing to swear this at court. To successfully pursue the driver the claimant would be required to prove who was driving on the balance of probabilities. More than one person drives the vehicle and there are more than one named drivers on the insurance policy. The hirer has NO liability in this matter. As you will know, a counterclaim for £1,500 was recently successful against VCS as a result of pursuing someone with no liability in the matter.

Continuing this claim would be futile and unreasonable. I have also sent a copy of this correspondence to MET.

Coupon-mad

That wasn’t confirmed in Beavis, so don’t say that.  The rest is good!

AND NOW TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO  THIS:

The final Government Consultation into the level of parking charges, discounts, false ‘debt recovery add-ons’ (that no PPC actually pays)...

...and the Appeals Charter - that should IMHO result in full cancellations not enrich the PPCs by £20 or more because it would just encourage spurious PCNs that should never be issued...

... is now open!

See separate thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6286801/government-consultation-re-level-of-private-parking-charges-now-open

This forum’s regulars are encouraging email submissions with evidence and photos, letters attached to illustrate what happened to you and why you are answering the way you are.

Please tell your family and friends to encourage colleagues who have had these spurious PCNs and claims to email their evidence to the MHCLG as shown in the Consultation and not just do the tick boxes. 

The Government want evidence - victims must give it to them.  DON’T MISS IT.

F_CST

Thank you again. Is the correct case reference Excel v Wilkinson? I’m keen to appear as informed as possible.

I will certainly add my evidence to the consultation so thank you for highlighting.

Coupon-mad

Yes but Excel v Wilkinson isn't binding, it's just another court decision so you don't need to cite a case there.

If MET have never sued before do you think the LBC is just bluster and the matter is likely to be dropped whatever I do?

We don't know because CST Law do both. Sometimes they bluff and sometimes they start a claim, who cares really?  Defendable if you get a claim and it will at least be over by the Spring!

Raoultheman

BrownTrout said:

CSTs current form appears to be:
Issue LBCs for multiple tickets then issue a claim 
Issue LBCs for single tickets but then no claim.

do they always bother to show up at court, or is the issuance of a claim a bully tactic in the hope of scaring a few into paying?

patient_dream

Raoultheman said:

BrownTrout said:

CSTs current form appears to be:
Issue LBCs for multiple tickets then issue a claim 
Issue LBCs for single tickets but then no claim.

do they always bother to show up at court, or is the issuance of a claim a bully tactic in the hope of scaring a few into paying?

CST have been known to show up in court and then to get a spanking.from the judge

CST have become a joke and you can read about them here
They are under investigation by the SRA ..
AKA .. CREDIT STYLE

CST letters' forum group thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6166004/cst-letters-forum-group-thread/p1