CST Law & MET LBC at McDonalds

TiredJockey

Hi all am back to fight another one.

Have received a LBC from CST Law on behalf of MET Parking Services Ltd for a charge issued for a 13 minute overstay in a McDonalds carpark in April this year via ANPR. The signed time is only 90 minutes apparently, I didn't see this as it was extremely busy due to being one of the only places open during the lockdown at the time, this is probably the main reason for the overstay, and I am not familiar with the area as was travelling for work. The original charge stated 80 minute time limit rather than the signed 90 though so not sure if that's of any relevance.

Attempted to contact McDonalds manager and customer service, as I I had been a customer that day, to get this cancelled originally but they were very unhelpful, both in store (on phone) and at customer service email. 

I've read through a few threads about these latest batch of CST law LBCs and have included a draft response to the LBC below, if anyone has any comments would be appreciated as its a mix of things from a few threads and my own changes. Not seen a thread where they've moved forward with court proceedings yet either if someone can point me to one or other relevant threads would also appreciate. 

I will upload a copy of the original charge when they respond to my SAR as I've misplaced it. 

To whom it may concern,

I have received your letter before claim for PCN number XXXXXX. The alleged debt is disputed, staunchly denied and will be defended. Furthermore, the quantum is exaggerated and unrecoverable as it appears you’re attempting to claim the debt collection (operational) costs twice. Consequently, I request that you please provide me with your detailed calculations in determining the alleged charge amount of £170.00.

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 and if you proceed further, I will ask the court to strike out your clam as Abuse of Process as per the judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19). I will show your Letter before Claim in court together with this letter. You are of course at liberty to respond to me giving your legal authority to add such amounts.

I am, however, seeking debt advice and so you are required to allow me a minimum of 30 days before proceeding to do this as per section 4.2 of the pre-action protocol for debt claims (PAP).

In addition, as part of the PAP for debt claims and the overriding objective, I require you to supply me with copies of the alleged contract, namely copies of the actual signage on site. A computer render is insufficient; I require actual photographs taken on or around the date of the alleged breach.

Furthermore, please note I will be sending your client a Subject Access Request (SAR), as to date I have been provided with insufficient information. 

Regards

xxxx

The LBC.

Coupon-mad

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 and if you proceed further, I will ask the court to strike out your clam as Abuse of Process as per the judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19). I will show your Letter before Claim in court together with this letter. You are of course at liberty to respond to me giving your legal authority to add such amounts.

Remove the above, you can't use Crosby and it's pointless to talk about abuse of process. A similar case was appealed, and it will be the Judge who decides about any add-on, if the parking firm win of course! 

There is NO REASON to mention this now and you are banging your head against a brick wall if you try at LBC stage.  This is why the NEWBIES thread does not say to mention it now.

Instead, I would state that their client failed to comply with the BPA Code at 24.4. (two mandatory chaser letters without adding any false debt recovery costs) and that they also failed to allow a fair time to allow for time spent at the drive-thru (which is not parking time) and also, a consideration period of a few minutes on arrival in moving traffic, plus the mandatory  minimum ten minutes grace period to leave.  Ask for them to prove their timings and show the time the car was at the drive-thru, not just in/out ANPR images that prove nothing about the time parked.

Coupon-mad

I am assuming there is a drive-thru there and you MIGHT have used it, if so...

TiredJockey

Coupon-mad said:

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 and if you proceed further, I will ask the court to strike out your clam as Abuse of Process as per the judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court 11.11.19). I will show your Letter before Claim in court together with this letter. You are of course at liberty to respond to me giving your legal authority to add such amounts.

Remove the above, you can't use Crosby and it's pointless to talk about abuse of process. A similar case was appealed, and it will be the Judge who decides about any add-on, if the parking firm win of course! 

There is NO REASON to mention this now and you are banging your head against a brick wall if you try at LBC stage.  This is why the NEWBIES thread does not say to mention it now.

Instead, I would state that their client failed to comply with the BPA Code at 24.4. (two mandatory chaser letters without adding any false debt recovery costs) and that they also failed to allow a fair time to allow for time spent at the drive-thru (which is not parking time) and also, a consideration period of a few minutes on arrival in moving traffic, plus the mandatory  minimum ten minutes grace period to leave.  Ask for them to prove their timings and show the time the car was at the drive-thru, not just in/out ANPR images that prove nothing about the time parked.

Okay thanks, thought mentioning Crosby might be worthwhile as a deterrent but will remove it and amend accordingly. 

Coupon-mad said:

I am assuming there is a drive-thru there and you MIGHT have used it, if so...

This is indeed the case and didn't think about that, there was no overstay at all when you account for the time spent in the drive through. That's probably the best point of defence for me if they take it to court. 

Many thanks on the invaluable advice again! 

Coupon-mad

First thing I thought of, clearly time spent waiting at a drive-thru is not parking time. 

And they won't be able to prove it, which is why you ask them to show that evidence, now.  It paves the way to your defence. Won't stop the claim but puts you in a good position.

TiredJockey

Just had the email bounce back off info@creditstyle.co.uk saying it was blocked which seems a bit strange. Does anyone have a different contact email for them? That's the only one I could find. Moreover it seems I can't even use the contact us page on their website with a reference code which they haven't included on this LBC, they clearly want to make it hard to contact them.

Coupon-mad

Send them a letter.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

Send them a letter.

But don't end that letter

Regards

They're trying to sue you for goodness sake!

Business letters - Dear Sir/Yours faithfully. 

patient_dream

Whenever I see these CST letters I shudder by the total lack of intelligence ?

The parking ticket was £100 and NOT £170.  The add-on fake of £70 stems from DRP making use of BPA code of practice which invites the rogue traders to add the amount on, regardless if they, MET, actually paid the debt collector.

Your SAR to MET should provide a copy of the actual ticket and that can only show £100 ?

As DRP offer a "no win no fee" service and as you did not pay DRP, there was NO charge from DRP to MET as they failed and did not win.
As DRP cannot instruct CST, only MET can do this, unless MET can prove they paid the debt collection fee, their instructions to CST to collect £170 would be a fraudulent attempt to extort money.

If you get a court claim from CST, it will be signed as a statement of truth ?  Unless CST wish to substantiate such a claim, they must prove to the judge that the amount of £70 was paid by MET  This alone could cause an accountable problem for both MET and DRP

D_P_Dance

Total amount outstanding £170

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. This amounts to double recovery and some Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, a VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor. They are full aware of the unlawful nature of this addition yet persist in adding it.

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

Finaly, is a 90 minute time limit sufficient iat busy timrs?  Coulr it not be an unfaire term in a consumer contract under TE cONSUMER rIGHTS aCT?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2/enacted

sad_woman

Hello
I have also received a Letter Before Claim - but have temporarily misplaced it 
it is exactly as the man above. MET Parking in a McDonalds.  My overstay 14 mins.
I will check if there is a drive through and ask for the standard grace period to see if I can mitigate such a short period of overstay.

I'm a bit concerned that the LBC said I had a month( if memory serves) which is today/tomorrow.
If Im late responding does that make a difference to my response?

Any other advice would be really welcome as I am never sure I have gleaned all the advice fully as there is so much!

ALSO: 
I had a look at the NEWBIES thread again in case I had missed anything and notice that the NTK does not state the postal date.
It just has a date of issue of notice. (I have pasted images below)
The parking charge (contravention) date was 8/8/21
There was no date/postmark on the envelope
I marked the enveloped with the record date, as is my habit.. 23/8/21
It would appear if the date the 14 days starts is the day after the charge i.e 9/8 then the NTK should have arrived by 22/8/21

The NTK stated that as keeper I would be liable if the charge remained unpaid or the driver was not known etc so I assume that is the same as them quoting POFA?

Many thanks for your advice