CST letters' forum group thread

Umkomaas

the length of time also shown in the first ticket sent to us by parking eye

I'm afraid ParkingEye have nothing to do with your father's ticket whatsoever. The PPC that DRP are chasing on behalf of is Park Direct UK Limited. DRP cannot instruct CST, they have no contractual link to your father. This is an out and out debt collector attempt to extort money from your father.  Ignore it. 

Come back on a new thread if your father receives a formal Letter of Claim on behalf of PDUK, not DRP! (with a 30-day deadline for response), or court papers from the Northampton CCBC. 

Za1n3

Umkomaas said:

the length of time also shown in the first ticket sent to us by parking eye

I'm afraid ParkingEye have nothing to do with your father's ticket whatsoever. The PPC that DRP are chasing on behalf of is Park Direct UK Limited. DRP cannot instruct CST, they have no contractual link to your father. This is an out and out debt collector attempt to extort money from your father.  Ignore it. 

Come back on a new thread if your father receives a formal Letter of Claim on behalf of PDUK, not DRP! (with a 30-day deadline for response), or court papers from the Northampton CCBC. 

Many thanks for your information and advice! E

patient_dream

OH DEAR ... CST still talking rubbish saying they are instructed by DRP

I put this video on another thread to acknowledge the dream world another legal lived in.

Second award must go to CST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7u5SdjDSQQ

Another_Randomer

Hi I too have received a letter before claim stating that I owe £160 as posted on the pictures below.
I have sent SARs to Anchor Security Services LTD and the DVLA and have sent the below email to CST.

Dear Sir/Madam
 
I write in relation to the above PCN reference numbers and in response to your recent ‘Letter Before Claim’.
 
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, acting on behalf of an entity that I have no contract with. I require a copy of any contract you think I have with Debt Recovery Plus.
 
You state your client claims an unlawful additional amount of £60 on top of the maximum penalty of £100.00, so please explain your legal authority to increase the parking charge by an additional £60?
Please take note that your claim goes against the ruling of the Supreme court, POFA2012 and the double recovery rules of the County Court.
Therefore this can only be deemed as Abuse of Process and as such your claim is unreliable and if you proceed further, I will ask the court to strike out your clam as Abuse of Process.
I will show your Letter before Claim in court together with this letter.
You are of course at liberty to respond to me giving your legal authority to add such amounts.
 
My costs schedule will be presented to the court where required.
 
Please let me know when this ‘claim’ has been discontinued, given its unlawful precedence.

Please note I have received SAR info from both the PPC and the DVLA, who have confirmed no third party has requested data from them between the dates of the alleged parking and the date of the email. I am now wondering how they have my details without a request to the DVLA to hold me as the registered keeper?

It has now been over 30 days and CST have replied with the following:

Good morning,
 
Please be advised that the further £60.00 is a debt recovery fee approved within the guidelines of the BPA, the client has also stated that they have not received a SAR from yourself or had any contact. Our client therefore requests full payment to the value of the outstanding sum, within the next 14 days or that a suitable arrangement be agreed for the purposes thereof. Please be advised that failure to do so may result in further action being taken against you.
 
Please find below bank details to which payments can be made, quoting our reference number as above:
 
Account Name: Credit Style Limited
Account Number: 55105815
Sort Code: 60-60-05
Reference: 2202575
 
We would recommend that you seek independent legal advice in this matter as a whole and look forward to hearing from you further.

I intend to inform them that the BPA guidelines are just that, a code of practice. The legislation written in the POFA2012 Sch. 4 para. 5 clearly states "The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper", which in every case is £100. Is there anything else I need to add?

Coupon-mad

You seem to gave entirely missed the new DLUHC CoP from February - which banned the fake added costs - and how other people with LBCs (off this thread) are responding robustly.

Look at current Gladstones LBC threads.

patient_dream

OH BOY ..... CST STILL DON'T GET IT
It is amazing that the SRA let them lose on the public ???

The BPA code of practice saying debt collector charges can be added is just CLOUD dreaming invented by a "GARY" BOD, a debt collector and a BPA board member.

And that letter saying they are instructed by DRP, another BPA member, just shows how ignorant they are.

WHEN WILL CST LAW WAKE UP AND UNDERSTAND THAT GOVERNMENT HAS BANNED THESE FAKE ADD-ONS

Feel sorry for Anchor Security Services LTD ... they don't have a clue

Another_Randomer

Coupon-mad said:

You serm to gave entirely missed the new DLUHC CoP from February - which banned the fake added costs - and how other people with LBCs (off this thread) are responding robustly.

Look at current Gladstones LBC threads.

Thank you I had indeed missed this update, just had a read and it would seem the ban has Kiboshed any attempt to add additional fees, despite their attempt to justify it within the BPA make it up as you go along guidelines.
I am assuming however this applies to any fine regardless of the initial date prior to February?

Coupon-mad

They are not fines and the Code is not retrospective. 

But there is a way of wording it and using the new code in a robust response, and this is why I advised you to read other LBC threads.  It is all explained in the suggested responses.

nero33

I have emailed my SAR request to the Parking company and was about to email their solicitors with the following (as advised on the Newbies forum):-


"Your email tells the solicitor:

(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."

I can't work out for the life of me point (c).  Am I asking the solicitors to confirm their 'address for service' or my address?  (a) and (b) make sense as it is a clear instruction to the solicitor.  (c) is ambiguous to me.  

Thanks for any help - it has to be sent by today

Umkomaas

nero33 said:

I have emailed my SAR request to the Parking company and was about to email their solicitors with the following (as advised on the Newbies forum):-


"Your email tells the solicitor:

(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."

I can't work out for the life of me point (c).  Am I asking the solicitors to confirm their 'address for service' or my address?  (a) and (b) make sense as it is a clear instruction to the solicitor.  (c) is ambiguous to me.  

Thanks for any help - it has to be sent by today

c) applies if you've moved address and the PPC and/or solicitors are writing to your former address, or some correspondence is going to old and new address.  It won't apply to most people, just a small few.