CST Law LBC

Coupon-mad

Just re-reading this, has the keeper (your wife is getting the letters?) not yet told tedious old CST Law in writing that the machines were not working on both occasions and putting their client to strict proof that the payment methods were working, at the material times? 

Even if that's been said before to Smart, put it in writing by email to CST Law now. 

Parties are expected to narrow the issues outside of court.  This is her chance to set them up to fail later, if this is stated by email at LBC stage, and not addressed by them.  Gives her a moral and legal high ground.

patient_dream

xHarlanx said:

patient_dream said:

Did you respond to the letter before claim ?

2 parking tickets they value at £170 each ?  More living in the clouds by CST
Who have they asked you to pay ?

Even Smart parking will know this is a fabrication because their tickets have a value of £100 or so they think.   
It is shameful that a legal who trades as Credit Style is allowed by the SRA to send out such rubbish

patient_dream said:

Did you respond to the letter before claim ?

2 parking tickets they value at £170 each ?  More living in the clouds by CST
Who have they asked you to pay ?

Even Smart parking will know this is a fabrication because their tickets have a value of £100 or so they think.   
It is shameful that a legal who trades as Credit Style is allowed by the SRA to send out such rubbish

Yes I responded to the letter before claim by issuing smart parking an SAR. also emails CST advising them i have sent an SAR and seeking debt advice.

They still say make payment to debt recovery.

As you know, DRP have nothing to do with this or anything else come to that.?

As suggested, issue a complaint to the SRA about CST LAW / CREDIT SYTLE as they are misleading you who is involved and pretending that parking tickets are £170

This rubbish must be stopped

xHarlanx

Coupon-mad said:

Just re-reading this, has the keeper (your wife is getting the letters?) not yet told tedious old CST Law in writing that the machines were not working on both occasions and putting their client to strict proof that the payment methods were working, at the material times? 

Even if that's been said before to Smart, put it in writing by email to CST Law now. 

Parties are expected to narrow the issues outside of court.  This is her chance to set them up to fail later, if this is stated by email at LBC stage, and not addressed by them.  Gives her a moral and legal high ground.

No we haven't made CST Law aware re the machines not working. I will write to them now letting them know, I will follow it on from my previous email as they never responded to that either.

Many thanks for the heads up :-)

D_P_Dance

You might like to consider complaints to Trading Srandards and your MP as well.

xHarlanx

patient_dream said:

xHarlanx said:

As you know, DRP have nothing to do with this or anything else come to that.?

As suggested, issue a complaint to the SRA about CST LAW / CREDIT SYTLE as they are misleading you who is involved and pretending that parking tickets are £170

This rubbish must be stopped

Yes I am aware DRP have nothing to do with this from when I read the Newbies threads.

I am writing to CST today to let them know that the machines were not working (as advised to do so by Coupon-Mad) and that Smart Parking have failed to send me a copy of the PDT machine records. So perhaps I also advise them that I am complaining to the SRA re them misleading us as to who is involved etc?

Coupon-mad

I hope you are doing all this in the name snd email of the person receiving the letters?  Are you the keeper and potential defendant or your wife?

KeithP

Coupon-mad said:

I hope you are doing all this in the name snd email of the person receiving the letters?  Are you the keeper and potential defendant or your wife?

Apparently this was a courtesy car lent to the OP's wife.

The OP told us yesterday...

xHarlanx said:

Additionally, I didn't advise on here initially that the vehicle was a curtesy car whilst our car was being fixed. I read on the newbies re hire/leased vehicles but nothing on a curtesy car and therefore would this have any baring on the case?

Coupon-mad

Oh yes, thanks!  Depends who the PPC is writing to though and I'm not sure we know for sure.

Seems to be his wife's courtesy car in her name but maybe the OP can confirm, and reassure us that HE (a stranger, a third party) is not doing the emails in his name in error.

KeithP

Coupon-mad said:

Oh yes, thanks!  Depends who the PPC is writing to though and I'm not sure we know for sure.

Seems to be his wife's courtesy car in her name but maybe the OP can confirm, and reassure us that HE (a stranger, a third party) is not doing the emails in his name in error.

I pointed out yesterday...

As CST are chasing your wife for money, everything must be done in her name.

And also asked...

So from that it appears that the Smart Parking Ltd have no idea who was driving the vehicle - because you/your wife haven't told them. Is that right?

...but no response.


The 'hire car' aspect was also mentioned.

xHarlanx

Coupon-mad said:

I hope you are doing all this in the name snd email of the person receiving the letters?  Are you the keeper and potential defendant or your wife?

Hi My wifes vehicle is leased in my name but the car in question was a curtesy car which was lent to her for which VW made smart parking aware. All my emails and letters etc to Smart Parking and CST Law have been done addressed from my wife (althogh yes i'm researching and writing them etc). I read as much of the newbies as possible to know I should have done this, the newbie links are extremely helpful.