Received a Letter Before Claim from SIP as claimant and solicitor

ScammingIndustry

@Coupon-mad please help me out so I can send this at the earliest. Thank you

Coupon-mad

Never ever use the word 'fraud' about a PPC.  So remove that word.

Remove the start because a reply to a LBC is completely separate from the SAR, and they are not an 'authority' and nor is a court claim a 'CCJ':

I am writing to formally request a subject access request (SAR), as you are the acting authority I would also request to put a hold on the process of CCJ for Subject access request.

You do need to open with the words given to you already by us, that you are seeking debt advice and require the case to be put on hold for not less than 30 days.

You need to remove your name from the forum post, or the Forum team will, to protect your ID.

ScammingIndustry

Apologies, just realised I have included my name. I am unable to find the edit button so if a moderator could remove my name that would be great

ScammingIndustry

Coupon-mad said:

You do need to open with the words given to you already by us, that you are seeking debt advice and require the case to be put on hold for not less than 30 days.

once I have made the necessary change. would you say it's ready to be sent? do i need to include any other information. If I write seeking debt advice, would they require the details of the "company" i am seeking advice from?

Coupon-mad

Nope.  No evidence needed.

ScammingIndustry

Coupon-mad said:

Nope.  No evidence needed.

Great! I appreciate your help. I will update you once I receive a letter back.

Via email, I will request SAR from their data officer.

once again, thank you for your help! 

ScammingIndustry

I have written a letter in reply to the letter of claim. I will be sending it by post.

There are various issues with the parking land e.g. signage and payment issue

Main point of my argument is that the displayed tariff is incorrect. It charges me more than the displayed tariff for the 12 hour duration, whether I pay by cash or card so it cannot be administration fee. Surely, this means are terms and conditions are false too

Coupon-mad

One unenforceable term doesn't cause the rest to fail.  That's in the CRA 2015 I seem to recall.

ScammingIndustry

Coupon-mad said:

One unenforceable term doesn't cause the rest to fail.  That's in the CRA 2015 I seem to recall.

there seems to be multiple contract breaches for e.g in the event of non payment, customer is not told to leave as they should be by Private Parking code of practice. Inadequate, barely legible signage. Issuing wrong tickets with different locations

Coupon-mad

I do think charging more than the advertised tariff is an offence though, unless the signs says extra will be added.  However they can't add more for card payments - that's illegal.