CST letters' forum group thread

Coupon-mad

A SAR is free.

The tenner is only if you ask for excessive stuff or are unreasonably duplicating work by asking for a SAR twice, etc. 

MET have never done court.  You'd be the first.  Not happening, IMHO.

D_P_Dance

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount OF £70 for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and 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."

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, which are nvariabky disallowed by the judge, yet persist in adding them..

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

stor

Trainerman said:

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.

So even if I lose, it will make little difference compared to if I pay now right? 

Yes, MET is part of BPA. Should I mention this in my email to CST law when asking about the additional charges? 

Yes, we were 100% led to believe we can park there without permit (was not aware of permit at all). Parked there for almost 2 years with no issues. Thanks 

D_P_Dance

So even if I lose, it will make little difference compared to if I pay now right? 

It is likely to be less.

Coupon-mad

Unlikely to get a claim, full stop.  It's only MET!

ECCLE_6

Hi All, I see many of you have had these letters, I have until 28/03/22 to pay before they take me to court. Any advice would be appreciated. As I'm starting to worry now the last thing I need is a hammered credit rating. Thanks in advance

Trainerman

It is just another poor silly threat letter. Bogus too, as DRP cannot instruct solicitors, only the PPC can do that.

Stop worrying, sleep well and just be clued up and ready for IF a claim arrives.

You get NO credit hit, NO bailiffs unless you lose at court and then don't pay !

Umkomaas

Hi All, I see many of you have had these letters, I have until 28/03/22 to pay before they take me to court. Any advice would be appreciated. As I'm starting to worry now the last thing I need is a hammered credit rating.

Advice - see if their money is where their mouth is!

Why do you think you'll have a 'hammered credit rating'?

ECCLE_6

I was worried about my credit rating getting hit if a CCJ gets issued against me

Trainerman

ECCLE_6 said:

I was worried about my credit rating getting hit if a CCJ gets issued against me

As we said, even IF you lose, as long as you pay in time NO CCJ on your record ! Plus, even if you lose you probably pay less than the PPC inflated claims !