Letter before a claim - next steps?

Le_Kirk

greenfalco said:

Would it be wise to repeat the steps? (I assume considering they already sent the data, they could claim an admin/processing fee?)

Correct and they will.

greenfalco

Le_Kirk said:

greenfalco said:

Would it be wise to repeat the steps? (I assume considering they already sent the data, they could claim an admin/processing fee?)

Correct and they will.

@Le_Kirk...  Have the SAR details been deleted from the Newbies thread? I can't find any information on sending a SAR following the LBC.

GF

Coupon-mad

Yes they've been removed because the advice has changed. Do what it NOW says for a LBC.

greenfalco

Coupon-mad said:

Yes they've been removed because the advice has changed. Do what it NOW says for a LBC.

The original SAR provided the keeper with a lot of evidence that helped the case. Would not pursuing this go against the chances of a successful court case?

GF

Coupon-mad

Nope. We know exactly what we are doing.

greenfalco

Coupon-mad said:

Nope. We know exactly what we are doing.

Le_Kirk said:

greenfalco said:

Would it be wise to repeat the steps? (I assume considering they already sent the data, they could claim an admin/processing fee?)

Correct and they will.

Ok then, the keeper shall reply to Gladstones (disputing the alleged debt and telling them to place the matter on hold for 30 days whilst you seek debt management advice) and will start looking at a draft defence.

GF

Coupon-mad

Debt advice not 'management'.

And ask the questions in the new LBC response letter about whether the PCN is consideration for parking, and about the VAT position on the rip-off fee.

There's a reason and I've not seen a single bulk litigator properly answer it yet.  It's interesting...

greenfalco

Coupon-mad said:

Debt advice not 'management'.

And ask the questions in the new LBC response letter about whether the PCN is consideration for parking, and about the VAT position on the rip-off fee.

There's a reason and I've not seen a single bulk litigator properly answer it yet.  It's interesting...

Is it ok to use the generic response to Gladstone's? The keeper notes that the original fine was £100, and now Gladstone's are asking for £160, so the comment regarding the 'additional £70' should read 'additional £60'?

PS. Not sure if this makes any difference, but the number plate on the PCN is now on a different car.

Thanks again!
GD

greenfalco

@KeithP as the keeper has misplaced the information from the SAR sent 2 years ago, could the keeper trip themselves up by stating the claim has insufficient detail? (Considering the claimant actually did send a SAR)