CST Law Claim on behalf of Euro Car Parks for £1.2K for parking on private land

1505grandad

Pedantic mode:-

Para 3c  -  " The particulars of the claim are vague and lack sufficient detail needed to produce a comprehensive defence. The Particulars of Claim fail to note the number of breaches that are alleged to have (taken), the alleged dates and respective time periods. It is therefore requested that in the event the claimant produces further details of their, the defendant is provided an opportunity to respond to all details."

should that be (occurred)

"..produces further details of their (.), the..."  -  should this include (claim)

Le_Kirk

Paragraphs 2 & 3 appear to duplicate each other.

2. The defendant admits to being the registered keeper but not the driver during the period of when the alleged breaches are claimed to have occurred. However it is not admitted that the registered keeper was driver during the alleged breaches.

Could be tidied up to one sentence as above.  The defendant doesn't recall being the driver, nor visiting the car park yet has remarkable knowledge of the signage!  Maybe you need to add something like: -

During a visit for research purposes after receipt of the claim the defendant noticed that the car park where alleged contraventions are......

Also it is normal to put, in 3d for example: -

the claimant is put to strict proof of who the driver was at the time of the alleged event

Yawn1

Coupon-mad said:

Looks ok to me.  I still think you will struggle as it is a multi ticket case and a Judge will ask if you were driving.  Is it true that you can’t recall parking there? Don’t lie in a court defence.

And did you submit responses to the MHCLG? It’s about to close in 2 days.

Is it really out of the realm of possibility I can't recall using a car park 4-2years ago for a vehicle I no longer own? I mean there's a reason fines are required to be sent within 14days. I'm also unclear as to how many tickets these are, and when they occurred, so perhaps it is worth spelling out that this is primarily the reason why I can't definitively recall

Agree that given it's multiple tickets, my outlook isn't great. I was pretty much ready to throw in the towel, but forum members made me realise I won't pay a great deal more disputing in court, so may as well try my luck. Who knows, perhaps if I have to pay I can get a few hundred knocked off. We'll see.

I used to work for MHCLG, wish I could have spoke to team driving this forward.

1505grandad said:

Pedantic mode:-

Pedantic mode very much appreciated. Happy to have the defence torn apart, if it produces something of greater quality.

Yawn1

Le_Kirk said:

Paragraphs 2 & 3 appear to duplicate each other.

2. The defendant admits to being the registered keeper but not the driver during the period of when the alleged breaches are claimed to have occurred. However it is not admitted that the registered keeper was driver during the alleged breaches.

Could be tidied up to one sentence as above.  The defendant doesn't recall being the driver, nor visiting the car park yet has remarkable knowledge of the signage!  Maybe you need to add something like: -

During a visit for research purposes after receipt of the claim the defendant noticed that the car park where alleged contraventions are......

Also it is normal to put, in 3d for example: -

the claimant is put to strict proof of who the driver was at the time of the alleged event

This is very helpful, thank you

Jenni_D

3c and 4 seem to be saying the same thing, so perhaps remove 3c altogether?

Yawn1

Jenni_D said:

3c and 4 seem to be saying the same thing, so perhaps remove 3c altogether?

Thanks Jenni, that's a fair point. I think they are slightly distinct given this claim is for multiple breaches; seems good to be clear I'm not aware of when these contraventions are alleged to have taken place.

Coupon-mad

By doing the consultation you did speak to the policy makers! 

Yawn1

Good afternoon all,

Hard to believe that it has been nearly 4 months already since my last post, in fact the week after that I learned I would be expecting my first child. So I have a greater incentive to not hand my cash over to a car park company. 

Anyway, since my post I submitted my defence. My phone broke so I can no longer access my MCOL account, due to no longer having access to authorisation code needed to login into Goverment Gateway.

I thankfully received a letter couple days later confirming receipt of my defence.

Mid-september I received notice of allocation to a small claims track and completed the questionnaire. 

I think about a month later I received confirmation that my case would be allocated to Bromley county court - convenient for me. 

Anyway, this afternoon I received a letter from CST Law which appears to be a letter before claim. Strange as this is the first I'm receiving this, furthermore it's dated 30th Nov which means it's taken over a week to arrive.

I'm seeking advice on how I respond. Do I call and say I've already acknowledged their claim and submitted my defence? Or write a letter? Any advice welcome

Jenni_D

You're 100% sure this relates to the same PCN(s) as for which you've filed a defence to a claim?

Write/email back to deny the claim, to advise that you've already filed a defence to their claim, and that you'll be retaining a copy of this letter to show the judge the Claimant's unreasonable behaviour when to comes to the matter of costs after the claim has been judged. (This just shows how disorganised they are).

Yawn1

Jenni_D said:

You're 100% sure this relates to the same PCN(s) as for which you've filed a defence to a claim?

Write/email back to deny the claim, to advise that you've already filed a defence to their claim, and that you'll be retaining a copy of this letter to show the judge the Claimant's unreasonable behaviour when to comes to the matter of costs after the claim has been judged. (This just shows how disorganised they are).

Good question. I assumed it was the same PCNs as because same company being represented and circa same amount is being sought (minus legal fees).

I'll send a letter. If anything this supports my claim that I never received LBC before.