CST letters' forum group thread

applecrate

Does anyone know the most appropriate/any email address for CST Law? Have sent the SAR to Smart Parking, but cannot for the life of me find any email addresss for CST Law, or even Credit Style, their parent. Have found the name of the legal services director for Credit Style though ;-)

Need to send them an email stating:

a) 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.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR
(c) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses.

Le_Kirk

applecrate said:

Does anyone know the most appropriate/any email address for CST Law? Have sent the SAR to Smart Parking, but cannot for the life of me find any email addresss for CST Law, or even Credit Style, their parent. Have found the name of the legal services director for Credit Style though ;-)

Need to send them an email stating:

a) 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.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR
(c) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses.

Search the forum and you may find someone else has posted about it.  Is it on any of the letters they have sent you?  I doubt CST will care that you have sent a SAR to the parking company and it isn't necessary in order to get the 30-day hold as that comes from the pre-action protocol for debt claims.  Look at sentence (c) as that is an instruction to YOU not to the solicitor or PPC, so it should be confirm MY address for service.

remlap666

Further to my post last August below,

I sent mine to all three of these addresses. None were bounced back as undelivered.

dataprotectionofficer@creditstyle.co.uk.

compliance@creditstyle.co.uk

info@creditstyle.co.uk

I hope they help. Good luck.

For other readers, I did receive the SAR information from Premier Park Ltd in mid September but, to date, I have had nothing from CST.

remlap666 said:

Before I add my LBC from CST Law, I'd like to thank the regulars here who have provided so much information and help for someone like me. I very much appreciate the time, effort and support you've given.

I've gone through the stages as I've understood them in the NEWBIES thread including Land Owner, PPC and POPLA appeals (Rejected), Debt Collector letters from DRP, a reminder from CST Law and now the LBC from CST Law as shown sanitised below.

I also include my sanitised draft SAR email to Premier Park Ltd and the Draft email response to CST Law denying the debt while seeking Debt Advice and querying the additional £70.00.

I hope I've understood the advice correctly and welcome any amendments, or, hopefully an okay to send the emails.

Even though I received the LBC yesterday 24 August 2021, the 30 day response window closes 11 September if my calculations are correct.

LBC from CST Law

Draft SAR to Premier Park Ltd

Premier Park Ltd                                             (My Address Removed for

PO Box 624                                                    Sanitation Purposes)

Exeter                                                          

EX1 9JG                                                        

 

 

25 August 2021

PCN XXXXXXX

Dear Sir or Madam,

Subject access request (Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR))

I am (My Name)                   of

My Address

 

 

 

Please supply the data relating to myself that I am entitled to under data protection law, including;

ALL photographs taken.

All letters and or emails sent and received, including all and any appeal correspondence.

All data held and all evidence you may rely on.

A full copy of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and the Notice to Keeper (NTK).

A list of all PCNs outstanding against me and/or this Vehicle Registration Number (VRN).

You are reminded that any claim must be for all PCNs, not several separate claims.

I include below an image of the V5C (Removed for Sanitation Purposes) but if you need any more data from me to confirm my identity, please let me know as soon as possible.

 It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month.

If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 Draft response to CST Law

Dear Sirs,

 

I have received your letter before claim for PCN number XXXXXXX. 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, so please provide your detailed calculations in determining the alleged charge amount of £170.00

 

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.

Yours faithfully,

Thanks again for your time. I'm now off to complete the private parking charges consultation.

omgsarge

Hi,

I had a CST Law court case which I defended, and it ended up being stayed due to CST law not responding to defence in time. I have confirmed this multiple times with Northampton Court who said it would need to be re-opened by them at cost, at which point I would have ability to defend/mediate. I thought that this would be the matter closed, but I have received yet another Letter Before Claim from CST - Law, covering the same PCN numbers as the last one from 21 months ago for what seems to be an entirely new claim?!

Can they actually do this? Keep re-submitting new letter before claims / attempted court claims for the same thing?

Also, in the interim I requested a SAR from the parking company involved (whom took much longer to reply than 30 days so I reported them to the ICO who found in my favour), and they do not even have record of one of the PCN Numbers on the new CST Law letter - so either the parking operator has lost my data, or CST-Law have made one of the PCN Numbers up.

I have gone directly to the Parking company over this as well, as the PCNs are not even enforceable (I had 2 others for the same week period struck off on appeal due to multiple signage/other issues relating to the car park.)

Very confused, would appreciate any advice?

Coupon-mad

I think they can file a fresh claim because the first one remains undetermined.  Treat it the same as any LBC.

matthew19

Hello,

I have received the below letter from CST and am unsure how to proceed. I received a parking ticket last August and never paid, i continuously have received letters from DRP and haven’t responded to any. I have now received this debt reminder from CST and unsure if i can still ignore or if action should now be taken?

any help much appreciated!

D_P_Dance

It is only a debt if a judge says so,  Have you read the newbies and complained to your MP?

Please also read this wet the added unlawful £60.

Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

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''.

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

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

patient_dream

matthew19 said:

Hello,

I have received the below letter from CST and am unsure how to proceed. I received a parking ticket last August and never paid, i continuously have received letters from DRP and haven’t responded to any. I have now received this debt reminder from CST and unsure if i can still ignore or if action should now be taken?

any help much appreciated!

Unbelievable TOSH.
As said a million times here, DRP cannot instruct them. Only the PPC can do that
In todays world and far into the future .. DRP are a nothing

And you do not owe £160 ...... they have added a fake £60 which the new code of practice BANS

The Mackie case was different in that the lady ignored everything and built a debt of £24k plus. She bankrupted herself which was the right thing to do.

So what do you do. ?
1: You ignore this misleading letter and the scare mongering by CST, they are scratching at straws
2: You issue a strong complaint to the SRA that CST (CREDIT STYLE) are misleading you, they are adding fake amounts which the new code of practice has banned, that CST are predending that the Mackie case reflects your case and that is scare mongering

It is companies like CST and DRP that have brought the parking industry into disrepute and hence the new code of practice.

stor

Hi everyone,

Unfortunately, I have had a bad year or two with these private parking companies. I got two tickets on the same day last year at 6am and 11am for parking in private car park to which we had key access but apparently no permit. I was able to park in the same place for almost 2 years with no issues. The signs was in awful state and difficult to read. 

I used the blue template to complain for both tickets, they were rejected. Appeal was rejected in POPLA stage too. My main argument was that the signal sign in the car park was not clear, and obscured by a van that's almost always parked in front of it. I mentioned that I live in the area. The AST does not make any mention of parking but when initially speaking to the agent they verbally said we can park there (they weren't quite sure) as we have the key. 

I ignored the debt letters. Now I received LBC from CST law which seems to be only for 1 of the tickets.

I am going to:
1) Use the template kindly posted above to request SAR by emailing dpo@metparking.com with 
2) Email CST to put the claim on hold and to provide reasons for the additional £70 being added
3) Complain to my MP 
4) Already asked the agents to provide land owner details (no response) 

The MET privacy policy states that there may be £10 charge for SAR
1) Has anyone paid this? 

2) If I was to go to court, and try to defend this. If I lose what additional costs do I pay? is it just the £170 or there will be additional fees? 

Is there anything else I should do? any advice will be much appreciated. As always thank you for your help! 

Trainerman

If they try Court, they will ASK for costs. If you beat them, you pay nothing. If you get the fake additional £70 removed (which the Government has now banned), but lose the case, little difference to if you paid now. However, you might have two cases coming along, and that is surely worth defending..

Two tickets for the same vehicle on the same day breaks the BPA CoP ( if your scammers are members), You also have defence in poor signage but maybe even better, if you had a key you had permission, did you not? That permission may not have required you to use a permit. Need more details really, but seems lots to go at here.