Advice on CST Law “Letter Before Claim” - Scotland

lindsay21

beamerguy said:

Scotland is not an easy place for CST. YOU WILL NEVER NAME THE DRIVER

CST have added fake amounts and most of all, THEY CANNOT BE INSTRUCTED BY DRP

All explained here and how to respond to them. This is a letter before claim so you respond as seen in this thread

CST letters' forum group thread

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

YOU WILL NEVER NAME THE DRIVER

I’ve had a look at the thread but can’t see anything about what my response to them should look like. Not sure if I’m just missing it as it’s a lengthy thread but can someone reply to this and let me know how a response should look? Thanks in advance!

Fruitcake

What happened when you complained to the landowner?
Have you complained to your MP yet?
DRP cannot instigate court proceedings so CST Law cannot act for them other than in the same capacity as a powerless debt crawler. I suggest you read the CST Law joint thread, and complain to the SRA (or Scottish equivalent if there is one) that CST Law are pretending to be acting as solicitors, and make the same complaint to the BPA that one of their members is using a company who are pretending to be acting with authority that they do not have.

beamerguy

lindsay21 said:

beamerguy said:

Scotland is not an easy place for CST. YOU WILL NEVER NAME THE DRIVER

CST have added fake amounts and most of all, THEY CANNOT BE INSTRUCTED BY DRP

All explained here and how to respond to them. This is a letter before claim so you respond as seen in this thread

CST letters' forum group thread

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

YOU WILL NEVER NAME THE DRIVER

I’ve had a look at the thread but can’t see anything about what my response to them should look like. Not sure if I’m just missing it as it’s a lengthy thread but can someone reply to this and let me know how a response should look? Thanks in advance!

Yes, a long thread because CST are making fools of themselves.  Look at the replies for the last 30 days, you will see a few of mine ...... the answers for you are in the thread

Umkomaas

Deny there is any debt owed to DRP. If DRP feel they have a case against you, invite them to instigate proceedings via the Simple Procedures process in the Sheriff Court within 14 days, or stick their threats up their sporran!

Don't be a shrinking violet where faux solicitors and powerless debt collectors are concerned. 

Coupon-mad

lindsay21 said:

beamerguy said:

Scotland is not an easy place for CST. YOU WILL NEVER NAME THE DRIVER

CST have added fake amounts and most of all, THEY CANNOT BE INSTRUCTED BY DRP

All explained here and how to respond to them. This is a letter before claim so you respond as seen in this thread

CST letters' forum group thread

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

YOU WILL NEVER NAME THE DRIVER

I’ve had a look at the thread but can’t see anything about what my response to them should look like. Not sure if I’m just missing it as it’s a lengthy thread but can someone reply to this and let me know how a response should look? Thanks in advance!

You are meant to read it all, slowly, not 'have a look' for a quick fix.

We don't need any other CST threads and have already told you what to do.

lindsay21

Coupon-mad said:

You are meant to read it all, slowly, not 'have a look' for a quick fix.

We don't need any other CST threads and have already told you what to do.

I have read the following threads:
- Newbie
- CST Letters Forum Group thread
- LBC Received Smart Parking - Northern Ireland.

Page 7 - 9 on the CST Letters Forum Group discuss Scotland and some comments say ignore the letter and some say to respond, why is why I am asking for clarity. Should I be emailing CST with this template:

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing in response to your recent 'Letter Before Claim' dated 22nd October 2020 in relation to the above PCN reference numbers.

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 have claimed an additional £75 for ‘debt recovery’, which you state is included in the charge you claim. That equates to £15 per parking ticket which is unlawful. If as you say this is included, then that also leaves an unlawful charge of £70 per parking ticket. You have already stated that the £75 is for recovery so please explain your legal authority to increase each ticket price by £70.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.
Should 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 along with this response. 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.

Please let me know when this ‘claim’ has been discontinued, given its unlawful precedence.

Or should I be following the advice on the final comment on the Northern Ireland thread:

I woud reply and tell CST to delete your data or provide evidence as to who was driving, and why they think that Smart can charge £170 per PCN PLUS £90 on top, when the Late Payment regs do not apply to consumer contracts and the parking charge itself must already include all costs of the operation (confirmed by the ParkingEye v Beavis case at 98, 193 and 198). 

And ParkingEye v Somerfield [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 confirmed that debt recovery/admin sums can't be added to a parking charge, and the POFA doesn't apply in NI so as registered keeper you are not liable and in the absene of evidence, ahve no idea who was driving.  Therefore the only excuse that Smart had to obtain your data from the DVLA (to invite you to name the driver) has disappeared and is no longer a valid reason to keep processing keeper data and pretending that the keeper owes money. 

As such, the case must be returned to Smart Parking and they must cancel it because there is no lawful reason to pursue you in NI and no justification to continue to write to you or share the data with CST.  If CST and/or Smart refuse to cancel the case and insist on continuing to write to the keeper when the POFA has no application in NI, you will complain about both companies to the ICO and will also report CST to the SRA and FCA for breaches of their standards.

I was using my phone, which I learned was a rookie error as it's not as user-friendly, and when I switched to the laptop I realise I should have put my letter on the CST Letters Forum Group instead of creating a new thread so for that I do apologise.

I do sincerely appreciate the help that has been given so far (on this thread as well as the existing ones). I'm just feeling overwhelmed and bamboozled with information!

Redx

why did you expect this to be simple ? its a complex topic , as are all legal matters, never mind that you are in Scotland with different laws, different courts etc, it was never going to be simple and wont be until the new CoP comes in next year for all private pcn,s going forward in time (not retrospective)

its because law is complex that it takes years to become qualified and only then in certain specialties, like wills and probate , conveyancing , criminal law etc

personally I would ignore any debt collector letter , but I would email the SAR to the DPO at the PPC, in this case , SMART , as a keeper , to obtain my data

nothing you can say or do will change the path they will follow, what will be , will be , Que Sera , as the song goes. Smart will make a decision, or not, going forward, regardless of anything you do, or dont do

and never , NEVER use a phone to browse a topic like this on the internet, they do not give you the full internet access of a laptop. I have argued with family members because I have seen information on e bay adverts that they say are not there (because they were using a phone) , like specifications on electrical items etc

Coupon-mad

I'd do this for any Scottish or NI case:

Or should I be following the advice on the final comment on the Northern Ireland thread:

I would reply and tell CST to delete your data or provide evidence as to who was driving, and why they think that Smart can charge £170 per PCN PLUS £90 on top, when the Late Payment regs do not apply to consumer contracts and the parking charge itself must already include all costs of the operation (confirmed by the ParkingEye v Beavis case at 98, 193 and 198). 

And ParkingEye v Somerfield [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 confirmed that debt recovery/admin sums can't be added to a parking charge, and the POFA doesn't apply in NI so as registered keeper you are not liable and in the absence of evidence, have no idea who was driving.  Therefore the only excuse that Smart had to obtain your data from the DVLA (to invite you to name the driver) has disappeared and is no longer a valid reason to keep processing keeper data and pretending that the keeper owes money. 

As such, the case must be returned to Smart Parking and they must cancel it because there is no lawful reason to pursue you in NI and no justification to continue to write to you or share the data with CST.  If CST and/or Smart refuse to cancel the case and insist on continuing to write to the keeper when the POFA has no application in NI, you will complain about both companies to the ICO and will also report CST to the SRA and FCA for breaches of their standards.

Were_Doomed

... obviously changing references to NI to Scotland.

Redx

Or do as above , using a Scotland version of the reply above by our head of faculty , I have no problem at all with that approach and her carefully worded reply to CST law 😁👍

I would still email a SAR to the DPO at Smart to obtain my data as a data subject , using a typical SAR template

I would not enter into any dialogue with anybody , nor phone anyone either