PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

LBC from CST LAW for PCN nearly 4 years ago
FlashC
post Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:23
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Jan 2021
Member No.: 111,307



Hi all, I've been searching all over the internet and can't seem to get the hang of all the jargon related.

So in 2017 i received a PCN from UKPC and have since moved address. I totally forgot about it and now, almost 4 years later, I've received a Letter Before Claim from CST LAW stating that I now owe them £175 (including a £15 for resourcing/time spent)

I read on other forums to ignore this but they sent a Reply form as well as a Finances form which makes it seem a bit more urgent.

Another thing i read was on legislation.gov - Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that states amounts recovered by these companies cannot be more than the original Letter to Keeper.


I really just need to know what my next actions should be and whether I should be replying to CST or to wait for a possible court case??? (Don't really want all that hassle)

I attached redacted pictures and any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:23
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:34
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (FlashC @ Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:23) *
I read on other forums to ignore this but they sent a Reply form as well as a Finances form which makes it seem a bit more urgent.

Don't read those other forums. Do not ignore a genuine Letter Before Claim. You can ignore the finances form (although a requirement for debt claims).

QUOTE (FlashC @ Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:23) *
Another thing i read was on legislation.gov - Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that states amounts recovered by these companies cannot be more than the original Letter to Keeper.

Yes. A lot of arguing over this - private parking companies are addicted to these fictional charges and are trying to argue to keep them. But, yes, this can definitely be challenged - I find the additional £15 particularly cheeky.

QUOTE (FlashC @ Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:23) *
I really just need to know what my next actions should be and whether I should be replying to CST or to wait for a possible court case??? (Don't really want all that hassle)

A court claim will almost certainly follow. But it's hard to advise much further without knowing what heinous crime the driver is accused of...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlashC
post Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:40
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Jan 2021
Member No.: 111,307



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:34) *
QUOTE (FlashC @ Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:23) *
I read on other forums to ignore this but they sent a Reply form as well as a Finances form which makes it seem a bit more urgent.

Don't read those other forums. Do not ignore a genuine Letter Before Claim. You can ignore the finances form (although a requirement for debt claims).

QUOTE (FlashC @ Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:23) *
Another thing i read was on legislation.gov - Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that states amounts recovered by these companies cannot be more than the original Letter to Keeper.

Yes. A lot of arguing over this - private parking companies are addicted to these fictional charges and are trying to argue to keep them. But, yes, this can definitely be challenged - I find the additional £15 particularly cheeky.

QUOTE (FlashC @ Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:23) *
I really just need to know what my next actions should be and whether I should be replying to CST or to wait for a possible court case??? (Don't really want all that hassle)

A court claim will almost certainly follow. But it's hard to advise much further without knowing what heinous crime the driver is accused of...


Thanks for such a quick reply

So the driver was accused of "Not parking in designated bays".
I looked on UKPC website where you can view the photos taken of the car/offence and indeed there are no white parking bay markers.
I guess there is no real defense since it states cars must be parked in marked bays?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:43
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The Protection of Freedoms act does indeed limit claims under PoFA from the keeper to the original amount invoiced on the NtK, however it provides no such protection if they are able to claim from the driver..


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlashC
post Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:57
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Jan 2021
Member No.: 111,307



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 19:43) *
The Protection of Freedoms act does indeed limit claims under PoFA from the keeper to the original amount invoiced on the NtK, however it provides no such protection if they are able to claim from the driver..


Ah i see, well since I am only the registered keeper then they can't increase the "debt".

I sent a SAR to UKPC earlier, would I need to email CST/use return form to let them know that I am responding but deny the "debt"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 20 Jan 2021 - 20:16
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



To the solicitor a letter denying liability and making a CPR 31.14 request

https://legalbeagles.info/library/guides_an...n-of-documents/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlashC
post Tue, 2 Feb 2021 - 14:50
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Jan 2021
Member No.: 111,307



So last week I sent an email to CST LAW stating that I am seeking debt advice, dispute the debt and request any information they have regarding the PCN.

This morning I received a letter from a company called DCBL (Certified Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement) stating that I am no longer able to dispute the parking charge but the only opportunity would be to discuss in court.

There is no email address, only website to pay/bank transfer, or a number to call to discuss.

What do you all think my next move should be?


The SAR to UKPC revealed that their first Notice To Keeper was 25/05/2017 so 33 days after the PCN was issued.


Thanks.




This post has been edited by FlashC: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 - 14:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 2 Feb 2021 - 15:26
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



If CST Law at the LBCCC stage I see no reason for DCBL to be sending 'debt collection' letters!

These private parking companies aren't very good with ensuring their agents are using personal information appropriately...

You can ignore DCBL for now.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 2 Feb 2021 - 15:34
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Formal DPA complaint to UKPC for a clear DPA breach of misusing your personal data.

You may get them to drop the claim in exchange for you dropping the complaint.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FlashC
post Tue, 2 Feb 2021 - 15:47
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 20 Jan 2021
Member No.: 111,307



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 2 Feb 2021 - 15:34) *
Formal DPA complaint to UKPC for a clear DPA breach of misusing your personal data.

You may get them to drop the claim in exchange for you dropping the complaint.


Wow I didn't expect them to be breaching the DPA like that. I'll issue the complaint to UKPC for DPA breach and see what the outcome of that is.
Thanks!!!


QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 2 Feb 2021 - 15:26) *
If CST Law at the LBCCC stage I see no reason for DCBL to be sending 'debt collection' letters!

These private parking companies aren't very good with ensuring their agents are using personal information appropriately...

You can ignore DCBL for now.


It's as if my data is being passed on company to company...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 2 Feb 2021 - 18:14
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So if the NTK is showing that the NTK was not delivered within the required time then include that in a letter in response to the LBC denying any liability as the keeper as POFA has not been complied with. Add in any other failures.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 2 Feb 2021 - 19:52
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Passing your details to debt collectors is permitted, it’s deemed reasonable, what is clearly unreasonable is issuing a letter before claim at the same time as a debt collector is issuing debt chasing letters.

It’s not only therefore unreasonable handling of the data but suggests they don’t have robust data handling systems on place to ensure there handling of data is always reasonable.

I would make the formal complaint and see how they reply, then make the ‘drop hands offer’ or state you’ll continue with a complaint to the ICO.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:26
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here