CST LAW Letter Before Claim - far too late to appeal to common sense?

TeddyRuxpin83

Good idea. OK, here's my V2:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in regards to an LBC received from you, for PCN xxxxx (on 28/01/2021) for VRM: <my reg> at the Victoria Industrial Estate car park on behalf of your client Park Direct UK Limited. This email is to note that:

(a) 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. 

(b) I have sent your client Park Direct UK Limited a SAR

(c) You have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £60 to the PCN. As you will be aware, judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this, such as in the case of Excel v Wilkinson.

Further, Park Direct UK can confirm a payment of £5 at 10:55pm 28/01/2021 to Park Direct via JustPark app (payment ID xxxx / xxxx). From 7pm-9am the Victoria Industrial Estate car park has a flat £5 fee and therefore there is no loss of earnings to your client. Paying earlier was impossible due to personal emergency. 

I can confirm an address for service of:

<my address>

Yours faithfully,

<My name>

Coupon-mad

Don't put 'no loss' in bold, in fact I wouldn't put that phrase at all.  A parking charge does not have to represent loss.

And re the point about adding £60, talking about Excel v Wilkinson isn't gonna impress them, so don't. 

Instead, state you want to narrow the issues because the £60 is double recovery.  State that you require evidence, once the 30 day 'hold' for debt advice expires, that their client complied with the mandatory 'reminder' then 'final notice' letter chain, set out in para 24.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, before resorting to what they call 'debt recovery'.

TeddyRuxpin83

Coupon-mad said:

Don't put 'no loss' in bold, in fact I wouldn't put that phrase at all.  A parking charge does not have to represent loss.

Sure - I put the phrase in, in order to highlight the fact that (hopefully) the judge will likely throw the case out due to double recovery AND no loss of earnings. I was trying to highlight that it's all a waste of everyone's time.

Coupon-mad said:

And re the point about adding £60, talking about Excel v Wilkinson isn't gonna impress them, so don't. 

Cool, thanks.

Coupon-mad said:

Instead, state you want to narrow the issues because the £60 is double recovery.  State that you require evidence, once the 30 day 'hold' for debt advice expires, that their client complied with the mandatory 'reminder' then 'final notice' letter chain, set out in para 24.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, before resorting to what they call 'debt recovery'.

Thanks a lot for that. But I'm not sure what you mean by 'narrow the issues'. What if PDUK did send those letters and they provide the evidence - what then?

I'm unsure of what was sent as anything PDUK sent me was sent to my legal UK registered address which is still technically my parent's place in London, but I live in most of the time Wales. I wasn't aware of the letters at first, however I did ignore some of them due to bad advice from some family members.

Just trying to figure out what the wanted outcome would be with regards to this type of situation.

Apologies if this is dragging on, and thanks again.

Coupon-mad

 But I'm not sure what you mean by 'narrow the issues'

It's a phrase from the pre-action protocol about trying to avoid court by resolving the dispute by sharing the facts.  Using such phrases makes you sound more clued up about the process you are involved in.

I doubt this Claimant has sent the mandatory letters (without adding any fees) that you will find set out in the BPA CoP at 24.4 because I've realised that very few of them do.  We should look at that more with claims from BPA members because Judges won't like it if a D can demonstrate actual breaches of the BPA CoP that denied the D the chance to pay or appeal earlier, before false costs were slapped on top.

TeddyRuxpin83

OK, thank you. I don't have too much longer left to reply (their LBC is dated Nov 5th), so hopefully this passes the test:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in regards to an LBC received from you, for PCN xxxxx (on 28/01/2021) for VRM: <my reg> at the Victoria Industrial Estate car park on behalf of your client Park Direct UK Limited. This email is to note that:

(a) 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. 

(b) I have sent your client Park Direct UK Limited a SAR

(c) You have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £60 to the PCN. As you will be aware, judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. I want to narrow the issues because the additional £60 is clearly double recovery. 

(d) I require evidence, once the 30 day 'hold' for debt advice expires, that your client complied with the mandatory 'reminder' then 'final notice' letter chain, set out in para 24.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, before resorting to 'debt recovery'.

Further, Park Direct UK can confirm a payment of £5 at 10:55pm 28/01/2021 to Park Direct via JustPark app (payment ID xxxx / xxxx). From 7pm-9am the Victoria Industrial Estate car park has a flat £5 fee. Paying earlier was impossible due to personal emergency.

I can confirm an address for service of:

<my address>

Yours faithfully,

<My name>

KeithP

I would change (a) to -
(a) 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 while I seek debt advice. 

I would also remove these words from (d) -
 once the 30 day 'hold' for debt advice expires, 

TeddyRuxpin83

Thank you! I'll edit my draft right now.

TeddyRuxpin83

Also, having re-read the NEWBIES post, I wanted to add that I'm still not 100% on what the desired (or likely) outcome is here.

Is it to go to court and get it thrown out? Is it to reduce the fee back down to £100 (or even £60) and pay that? Is it to 'put off' CST Law and make them not bother pursuing further action because they know they won't win the case?

Perhaps it seems obvious, but the last option is preferable as I really would rather avoid going to court or investing many more hours working out defences (and bothering you folks), then spending time in court for the sake of a single £60 ticket

Thank you, I really do appreciate you taking the time to help out all the newbies.

Le_Kirk

Ideally 1) the PPC cancels the claim; 2) you go to court and win; 3) you go to court, lose but pay only the original £100

Johnersh

OK, so whether the contract terms have been breached depends what the contract (sign) requires you to do.

If parking must be paid for before leaving the site, that is one thing. If the terms don't require that, then it's going to be difficult for the claimant to show any breach at all.

I differ from @Coupon-mad on this on a specific point.  No loss IS a relevant argument in a commercial car park with paid parking. The point is that they have their revenue. Where It is NOT a relevant argument is for sites where there is "free" parking, as there are other commercial factors in play, explored in the Beavis judgment.