Smart/CST ANPR PCN PAPLOC - Wrong Reg. - Hardwick Road, Stockton-On-Tees

[FTMDave]

Legally you're in the right.  The few times the PPCs have taken motorists to court over wrong registration cases, the judge has always thrown the case out.  It's "de minimis", AKA "the law does not deal with trivialities".  

 

However, the fleecers will still try it on. 

 

Please give us the information dx asked for above.  You will then need to tell CST Law to get lost via an appropriate snotty letter.

[FTMDave]

So just to be clear, in your appeal you informed Smart both that you were the driver and that you entered just one digit incorrectly, is that right?

 

Also I presume this was a pay car park, right?

[FTMDave]

Thanks.

 

The reason I asked is that normally when replying to a Letter Before Claim we advise not to give away information about how you would defend any court claim, because it gives the fleecers the chance to invent lies to counter your arguments.  It's like a game of chess outwitting these con artists.  However, as you've already appealed and mentioned the incorrect digit, how about -

 

 

Dear CST Law,

 

if you even a bog-standard small-town solicitor, never mind the "highly-experienced legal team" as hilariously claimed on Credit Style's site, you would have done a tiny bit of due diligence before lazily sending out your robo-letter and thus discovered your client's case is complete pants.  You can't even get my gender right!

 

Your client was paid the correct parking charge.  Your client suffered no loss.   Getting a single digit wrong when typing in the registration number is clearly "de minimis".  Every time a greedy private parking company has taken such cases to court they have received a hell of a kicking from the judge.

 

Your quids-obsessed client has also invented £70 Unicorn Food Tax.  Lewes.  F0HM9E9Z.  Go and look it up.

 

You and your client know full well that there is no debt.  Your sordid little scheme is not a genuine attempt to recover monies, but rather an abuse of the court system to try to force me to pay a sum I don't owe.  Therefore if "Smart" (ho! ho!) are thick enough to take me to court I will request the court issue an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

COPIED TO SMART PARKING 

 

 

However, as my suggestion is atypical for the site, hang on for a couple of days before sending anything out, there is the whole weekend for other site regulars to comment.

[FTMDave]

6 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Dear CST Law,

If you WERE even  a bog ..... missing word?

Well spotted lookinforinfo!

 

So after taking on board lookinforinfo & dx's suggestions, and not making it too long, how about -

 

 

Dear CST Law,

 

cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  If you were even a bog-standard small-town solicitor, never mind the "highly-experienced legal team" as hilariously claimed on Credit Style's site, you would have done a tiny bit of due diligence before lazily sending out your robo-letter and thus discovered your client's case is complete pants.  You can't even get my gender right!

 

Your client was paid the correct parking charge.  Your client suffered no loss.   Getting a single digit wrong when typing in the registration number is clearly "de minimis".  Every time a greedy private parking company has taken such cases to court they have received a hell of a kicking from the judge.  Getting the registration number wrong is not a reason for pursuing motorists.  That was established  when Baroness Walmsley V TFL [2005] EWHC 896 in the High Court of Justice won her case.

 

I would also point out that the new Government Parking Code of Practice due out shortly of which Smart Parking and CST Law will be only too well aware since it will severely hamper your money grabbing antics, includes the miscuing of registration numbers.

 

Your quids-obsessed client has also invented £70 Unicorn Food Tax.  Lewes.  F0HM9E9Z.  Go and look it up.

 

Should this case go to court despite having pointed out the futility of doing so, I will be asking the Court not only for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g), but I will also later sue for breach of GDPR as your clients knew their case was totally flawed but still carried on and informed both debt collectors and a legal organisation, admittedly though of low repute.  The standard for breaches of GDPR is now around £750. 

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

COPIED TO SMART PARKING 

 

 

If there are no further suggestions, on Monday invest in two 2nd class stamps, send one copy to CST Law and one to Smart, and get two free Certificates of Posting from the post office.  The reason I say to copy to Smart too is that CST Law (really dodgy debt collectors Credit Style) are getting bunged a few quid by Smart to write these letters, and I'm sure they'd delight in Smart starting a hopeless court case if that meant they'd make a few more £££.  Let Smart too know that it they proceed all they'll get is humiliation in court.

[FTMDave]

STOP PRESS  I've just discovered that the Lewes judgement I referred to got overturned, so best to cut that bit out.  So send off -

 

Dear CST Law,

 

cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  If you were even a bog-standard small-town solicitor, never mind the "highly-experienced legal team" as hilariously claimed on Credit Style's site, you would have done a tiny bit of due diligence before lazily sending out your robo-letter and thus discovered your client's case is complete pants.  You can't even get my gender right!

 

Your client was paid the correct parking charge.  Your client suffered no loss.   Getting a single digit wrong when typing in the registration number is clearly "de minimis".  Every time a greedy private parking company has taken such cases to court they have received a hell of a kicking from the judge.  Getting the registration number wrong is not a reason for pursuing motorists.  That was established  when Baroness Walmsley v TFL [2005] EWHC 896 in the High Court of Justice won her case.

 

I would also point out that the new Government Parking Code of Practice due out shortly of which Smart Parking and CST Law will be only too well aware since it will severely hamper your money grabbing antics, includes the miscuing of registration numbers.

 

Your quids-obsessed client has also invented £70 Unicorn Food Tax.  I doubt such behaviour would impress a judge.

 

Should this case go to court despite having pointed out the futility of doing so, I will be asking the Court not only for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g), but I will also later sue for breach of GDPR as your clients knew their case was totally flawed but still carried on and informed both debt collectors and a legal organisation, admittedly though of low repute.  The standard for breaches of GDPR is now around £750. 

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

COPIED TO SMART PARKING 

[FTMDave]

Interesting that Smart (post 4) offered to reduce the amount to £20.  They must know they have no chance with these claims and any money is better than nothing.

 

Anyway, get the letters off tomorrow and send them packing.