CST letters' forum group thread

Coupon-mad

Just read the rest of this CST Law group thread because photos of that letter are already discussed here.  Ignore it.

patient_dream

TWJayne88 said:

Hi, I hope you don't mind me posting this.... I was issued with a PCN from Smark parking in May 2022 and since then had received numerous letters from DRP before they past me on to CST law (I ignored all letters).

After reading all the brilliant advice offered on this forum and receiving an LBC I did respond to CST law, however, with the template that was being used by people. This was a few months back and I had heard nothing since, so thought it had gone away but now this morning I have received this letter...enclosed with the original PCN.

I'm assuming I can ignore it and see it as more scaremongering (clearly they can't acknowledge the dispute) but just wondered if anyone else had heard anything more from CST after submitting their response to the LBC? 

Thanks for you're help 

CST who prefer to be called Credit Style, are simply a joke, this thread highlights what a joke they are

CST are scamming you adding £70.   After many requests to CST TO EXPLAIN the £70, there has never been a reply because CST know it's a fake

Smart Parking use CST as a freebie debt collector and CST are sucked into this

As said ... IGNORE, let CST wake up to the fact they are being abused by SMART, why would Smart waste money when CST will do it for free .... JOKERS

helenmiddlerasen

I hope it's ok posting here for clarification, because I'm confused about whether I should respond to the letter attached which CST have sent to me claiming to be a letter before claim. I've read the entire 84 pages of this CST letter thread and can see two conflicting opinions. 1) You must reply 2) You don't have to reply it's a scam letter.

Please can someone help me understand which is correct? Thanks in advance for your help, and all the work you put into this

Fruitcake

The advice is not conflicting.

The letter above should be treated as a Letter of Claim because it states CST Law are acting for Smart Parking. The letter you showed on your thread referred to DRP, meaning it was a debt collector letter and can be ignored.

helenmiddlerasen

Fruitcake said:

The advice is not conflicting.

The letter above should be treated as a Letter of Claim because it states CST Law are acting for Smart Parking. The letter you showed on your thread referred to DRP, meaning it was a debt collector letter and can be ignored.

Ah, I think I see the problem which is my fault for covering up too much if the CST LAW letter. My letter of claim says they are representing Euro Car Parks ltd, but - the payment advice on the back of the letter gives payment details to DRP.
(Removed by Forum Team)

Umkomaas

Ah, I think I see the problem which is my fault for covering up too much if the CST LAW letter. My letter of claim says they are representing Euro Car Parks ltd, but - the payment advice on the back of the letter gives payment details to DRP.

Please remember that this CST group thread is almost 3 years old. Things move rapidly in the private parking world and advice transmutes alongside. When the thread was created, CST were a bit of an unknown quantity and we erred on the safe side by advising people to treat their letters as formal LBCs.  Time has since told us that they are evidently not, especially given who the party is to whom payment is to be made - Debt Recovery Plus. DRP have over the years used various solicitor letterheads to frighten and deceive people into paying them. They have no conscience. 

It's now entirely up to you to either follow current advice to ignore the letter, or respond to it as a formal LBC by following the advice for doing so in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post.  Neither will kill this off, the latter may well encourage DRP to send you more letters as they will think that you believe their threats are real and you may stump up with some more tightening of the thumbscrews. 

As we write, ECP do not issue court proceedings, especially £100 single parking tickets. 

helenmiddlerasen

Umkomaas said:

Ah, I think I see the problem which is my fault for covering up too much if the CST LAW letter. My letter of claim says they are representing Euro Car Parks ltd, but - the payment advice on the back of the letter gives payment details to DRP.

Please remember that this CST group thread is almost 3 years old. Things move rapidly in the private parking world and advice transmutes alongside. When the thread was created, CST were a bit of an unknown quantity and we erred on the safe side by advising people to treat their letters as formal LBCs.  Time has since told us that they are evidently not, especially given who the party is to whom payment is to be made - Debt Recovery Plus. DRP have over the years used various solicitor letterheads to frighten and deceive people into paying them. They have no conscience. 

It's now entirely up to you to either follow current advice to ignore the letter, or respond to it as a formal LBC by following the advice for doing so in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post.  Neither will kill this off, the latter may well encourage DRP to send you more letters as they will think that you believe their threats are real and you may stump up with some more tightening of the thumbscrews. 

As we write, ECP do not issue court proceedings, especially £100 single parking tickets. 

Ok, I 100% understand now - thank you ♥️

Fruitcake

You have left your PCN number showing. If you can't redact it yourself then report your own post by clicking on the Exclamation mark at the bottom of the post and select, Contains personal information.

helenmiddlerasen

Fruitcake said:

You have left your PCN number showing. If you can't redact it yourself then report your own post by clicking on the Exclamation mark at the bottom of the post and select, Contains personal information.

Done, thank you 👍

helenmiddlerasen

Hi, sorry I have one more question. I contacted the dpo officer at euro parks ltd last year to request a SAR (I actually forgot, because I realised I didn't have to respond to the letters from DRP) and they sent this response, refusing to respond to my request unless I provided photo ID and proof of ownership of the car. Is this correct? I don't want to provide them with info about me unless I actually have to. Thanks