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

Yawn1

Jenni_D said:

Have you looked at the WS examples by the forum members @Coupon-mad mentioned? You'll find their WSs way more detailed than what you've shown.

I have them open and I intend to quote some of the cases used. I also intend to add exhibits - i've saved some images from Google

My issue is that events preceding the receipt of the claim form differ from the other WSs.

patient_dream

Yawn1 said:

Johnersh said:

Do be aware that the claimant is not entitled to statutory interest on the whole sum claimed from 2017 if, on their own case,  the last PCN was issued in 2019.

They could have sought a composite rate at a lower percentage,  but they have not.  Nor have they done individual calculations for each PCN (check - they won't have done). The interest claim here is a significant addition.  A professionally represented claimant should do better. 

Given the unreliability of the claim as presented,  I would suggest that the safest course should be for the court to disallow the claim for interest in its entirety. 😉

- £500 (£100 for each PCN)
- £300 (£60 debt recovery charge for each PCN)
- £211.53 - interest at a rate of 8% PerAnnum.

totalling £1011.53 - but they have added £80 court fee and £80 for legal representative. making £1171.53

Court fee and legal costs are normal

BUT the £300 for debt collection charges is just fake piffle and invented by an OSNER chappie FROM ZZPS, another who just happens to be a board member of the BPA

A dreadful scam approved bt the BPA ......  it has no legal authority and is just a scam which judges take off.  And 8% interest.  CST Law are working from an out of date court system, who  earns 8% nowadays.  Judges will normally not allow this

So that's £511 a court will no doubt knock off
CST Law like all the dodgy legals are scamming you and worst of all trying to mug a court with fakery

Coupon-mad

Yawn1 said:

The above is what I have pulled together so far. CST have shared an Assignment contract between Bravo Croydon and Bravo Croydon Car Park - evidently as proof that ECP are acting on behalf of the landowner.

It states: the rights to income only from the car park of the leasehold property known as The Quarters Croydon, 20 Wellesley Road, Croydon CR0 9BN (the Property) commencing 14th January 2019 for the remaining term of the lease over the property held by the Assignor namely a period of 251 years commencing on the 31st MArch 2017."



^^ If I'm reading that correctly the rights to income starts in 2019 which means the rights prior to that should be invalid right?

I think you might be right but an 'Assignment Contract' is not something we've seen before. Can you show it in full (signatures/names redacted)?

Le_Kirk

Yawn1 said:

4.       It was not immediately clear based on the particulars of the claim how many parking charges pertained to the monies being sought, and when each alleged contravention took place. I have since received further details and undertaken research of the car park location to understand the issue further.

5.        Upon entry into the car park it is not explicitly clear that vehicle visitors risk engaging in a contract with the claimant as entrance terms and conditions signs are not visible.

6.       Any discernible signages are not immediately visible, and the text in which terms and conditions are written is objectively small text that is challenging to read. It is therefore denied that I entered a legally binding contract, as no signage existed on the road I was parked upon.

7.       At the car park location there are no available facilities such as a payment machine for which vehicle drivers would be able to acquire a ticket / permit to validate their parking.

8.       There absolutely no instances where a parking charge notice (PCN) was attached to vehicle in any instances of alleged contraventions to notify the driver that the parking in the facility was invalid or in violation of a purported contract.

Couple of changes to consider.  Aren't 5 & 6 essentially the same point?  In point 8, is there a word or words missing between "There" and "absolutely"?

Yawn1

Le_Kirk said:

Yawn1 said:

4.       It was not immediately clear based on the particulars of the claim how many parking charges pertained to the monies being sought, and when each alleged contravention took place. I have since received further details and undertaken research of the car park location to understand the issue further.

5.        Upon entry into the car park it is not explicitly clear that vehicle visitors risk engaging in a contract with the claimant as entrance terms and conditions signs are not visible.

6.       Any discernible signages are not immediately visible, and the text in which terms and conditions are written is objectively small text that is challenging to read. It is therefore denied that I entered a legally binding contract, as no signage existed on the road I was parked upon.

7.       At the car park location there are no available facilities such as a payment machine for which vehicle drivers would be able to acquire a ticket / permit to validate their parking.

8.       There absolutely no instances where a parking charge notice (PCN) was attached to vehicle in any instances of alleged contraventions to notify the driver that the parking in the facility was invalid or in violation of a purported contract.

Couple of changes to consider.  Aren't 5 & 6 essentially the same point?  In point 8, is there a word or words missing between "There" and "absolutely"?

I think 6 expounds point 5 slightly, though I tidied up the wording slightly and added different exhibits. Also fixed the typos in point 8 before sending.

Coupon-mad said:

Yawn1 said:

The above is what I have pulled together so far. CST have shared an Assignment contract between Bravo Croydon and Bravo Croydon Car Park - evidently as proof that ECP are acting on behalf of the landowner.

It states: the rights to income only from the car park of the leasehold property known as The Quarters Croydon, 20 Wellesley Road, Croydon CR0 9BN (the Property) commencing 14th January 2019 for the remaining term of the lease over the property held by the Assignor namely a period of 251 years commencing on the 31st MArch 2017."



^^ If I'm reading that correctly the rights to income starts in 2019 which means the rights prior to that should be invalid right?

I think you might be right but an 'Assignment Contract' is not something we've seen before. Can you show it in full (signatures/names redacted)?

I'll try and upload later

Grizebeck

You should have already got this sent of to the courts!

Coupon-mad

Grizebeck said:

You should have already got this sent of to the courts!

Yep, it's now a day late.

To the OP, get it (WS, exhibits bundle and your costs assessment) emailed. TONIGHT and not to the CCBC at Northampton by mistake!

And copy in CST.  Today..

Yawn1

Grizebeck said:

You should have already got this sent of to the courts!

I should have said I had already emailed WS to the courts and to CST a t midnight prior to my last post. Didn't receive any responses but I'm definitely sure it was received.






Anyway the hearing is next week. Admittedly I do feel like I should have been more prepared but my newborn has thrown me off my usual patterns. Will let you guys know how it goes.

I imagine there's strong potential that I'll lose case considering it's multiple (5) PCNs, and they have evidence that they sent me a tonne of letters (though I don't recall receiving them)!

But hopefully if the judge can dismiss the claims debt collection and interest, that will take out a bit of the sting.

We'll see

Coupon-mad

Sending a tonne of letters is irrelevant.  You don't have to respond to such trash if you think a PCN is (or multiple PCNs are) unjustified & unfair.

It's all about whether there was a relevant and prominent contract that was breached.  That's what to prepare a crib sheet about. And each PCN must be evidenced by them, at least 5 mins consideration period allowed before PCN, etc.

patient_dream

If CST actually go through with this, they will be taking to court a claim that is 50% FAKE and a scam

How they will substantiate the fake debt collection charges, the only feeble excuse they have is the code of practice and that money scam was started by the BPA and copied by the IPC.   There is no justification or legal authority for this fakery

Whoever from CST signs a court claim as the truth when it's not must be subject to being in contempt of court

A judge will really not be interested in reams of paper being sent, he/she will will be looking at the legality of the case and the fake add-ons have no legal authority

The dodgy legals that operate in the parking scam know full well that judges mostly knock off these fakes and this continual abuse means this is "MUG A JUDGE TIME" 

Will they claim interest on the FAKE amounts as well ???