LBA received from CST Law

LardyDah

Dear All

I would be grateful for some advice. Sadly in November 2020 on two consecutive days I paid to park via the Ringo App at a site managed by Smart Parking. 

Having recently changed my vehicle I inadvertently paid for the incorrect registration number to park. (Being fairly new to parking apps at the time, I didn’t realise, as I do now that you can have multiple vehicles listed) 

Once I received my 2 x PCN’s I appealed to Smart Parking, providing proof of my payment of the two transactions and explaining my mistake. Thinking logic would prevail as (who in their right mind is going to purposely pay for the incorrect vehicle, two days running) Sadly I now realise this is not how the system works. Smart Parking basically said you can pay £20 per ticket or appeal to POPLAR. 

So off went my two appeals to POPLAR which after some time (due to COVID) my appeal was declined and in no in certain terms I was questioned as to why I didn’t pay the reduced fine and it’s now my own stupid fault that the fine has increased.

I appealed to the Land Owner who wrote to Smart asking for them to drop the charges and Smart declined. So here I am. 

I have written to CST Law asking for information which they intending to rely on in court as the letter I received gave very little information of which I am now waiting a response. 

Has anyone else been in a similar situation as me? If so did it end up in court? 

Thank you for taking the time to read my post 

Coupon-mad

You would have seen BOTH PCNs cancelled immediately in 2020 (nothing to pay) if you'd come here first and not appealed as driver.  NEVER appeal as admitted driver!  Never mind, it's still defendable but was such an easy win for a keeper at the time with one email template appeal.

Loads of cases go to court.   Look at the threads on this board, almost all about court claims.

Happily, we consistently win 99% and there is zero huge costs nor any CCJ risk if you follow our advice.  This is covered in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES FAQS thread, top of the forum.

LardyDah

So this has now escalated and again looking for some advice on what I need to do now.

Below is my my response sent to CST Law back in 2022 of which I never received a response. Seems as though this has now been passed on.  

I have now received a LOC from DCB Legal - see image below 

My questions are a) is there a time limit as to how long they have to take this to court, wondering why this has raised its head 3 years later. b) do I send the below letter sent to CST Law again to DCB Legal. 

15th March 2022

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter of 4th March 2022. First, the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended. Secondly, I note your reference to Paragraph 4 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (“PAP”), However I would like to draw your attention to Paragraph 3.1(b)(i)

I would also like for you to provide information as per Paragraph 6 (a) and 6 (c) of Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct & Protocols

Please therefore provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct: I confirm that I shall then seek advice and submit a formal Response within 30 days of receipt, as required by the Practice Direction. Please ensure that someone does actually read and respond to this letter, providing the specific information relating to the county court claim that your client intends to make against myself as the defendant to the proposed legal proceedings. Please DO NOT send a generic FAQ letter in reply as to do so does not meet the requirements of the Practice Direction and will take this matter no further forward. Please note, a refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook version 8, published on 1st October 2013. I trust this will not be necessary, and look forward to receiving a fully compliant letter before claim in due course.

Thank you for your advice. 

Gr1pr

6 years is the deadline to start proceedings to sue you,  it's in the Limitations Act 1980, so in your case before December 2026 ( so November next year   )

Smart Parking have unloaded tens of thousands of back invoices to DCB Legal,  so email the LoC response template to info@ DCB LEGAL,  its in the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum 

Do not send the old response that you copied and pasted above,  only the new one 

Forgot about CST, stick to the present 

LardyDah

Thanks is it this one 
The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

Don't send me your usual blather about that.
I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully

Gr1pr

Correct,  email it to dcb legal,  then await their response  ( file it  ) and start preparing for the inevitable court claim in a month or two 

LardyDah

Having looked at the thread I believe to be correct can someone please confirm if this is correct, and my paragraph 3 is sufficient. 

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3.On both consecutive days namely, 13th November 2020 and 14th November 2020 the Defendant paid the correct parking fee so there is no breach by conduct. The charges attempt to penalise the Defendant for using the parking app which mistakenly having the incorrect vehicle auto selected. Despite the Defendant advising the claimant of this error by means of appeal which was refused. The correct amount was paid on both occasions, and despite the landowner requesting that the fines imposed were dropped the Claimant has decided to continue to pursue the claim.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources, and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Gr1pr

Depends on the POC in that future claim form, which hasn't been drafted or arrived yet,   but

2) should say the following after KEEPER,   and driver

3) mentioned the incorrect word , fines, no fines were issued,  just 2 private pcns by Smart Parking for the alleged breach of the parking contract on that private property,  invoices,  2 charge notices

LardyDah

Thank you will wait for the next letter to arrive

Coupon-mad

Yep you aren't defending a claim yet.

Please help to make a difference to the big picture: join us to do the Public Consultation once we've discussed it in August.

It's vital the Government hears from people who wasted time trying the IAS, then received £170 threatograms with no genuinely impartial efforts made to fairly resolve valid disputes and no real intention to bring their cases before judges:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

Please bookmark the main thread linked in that link.

Come back in August to take part.

We need to drown out the 'alternative facts' from the parking industry and their relatives posing as ordinary motorist consumers.