UKCPM PCN - operator pix - Trinity Park, Birmingham

[squirlyline]

2 hours ago, ericsbrother said:

I would send the original letter and dont try and justify anything about post, deemed service etc as it will justcreate more trouble than it is worth.

 

Got the slimmed-down version, thanks to dx100uk (as adjusted in my relevant post above), handed in this morning at the mobile post office; and no mention of post regulations etc.

2 hours ago, ericsbrother said:

To help with that send a copy to the client, UKCPM so they know that whatever Will and John tell them there is no such thing as an easy killa nd their solicitors may have just ceated more trouble than they have solved

Sounds like a great idea.. that may put the cat amongst pigeons! Hopefully they may start arguing amongst themselves instead

Should I send both letters to them then?

 

And would I add something by way of introduction; something along the lines of:

'I though it may be instructive for you to know that your solictors (Gladstones) cum private parking association (IPC) are misleading their clients in what can reasonably be considered a contractual parking infraction and hence chances of failure at court. Please see copies of my two recent letters to them below:...'

Also I presume to letterhead with my address and date, and print name below!

[ericsbrother]

do not add anything, just copy the letter to the parking co as they are the client and amke the decisions on their interpretation of contracts and whetehr they want to chuck money at this.

What you say may well invite them to continue rather than put up with an attempt at belittling Currently you target is clear, dont blur things.

 

[squirlyline]

I will send a copy of the 2 letters to 'UK CPM' by post on Monday (when the mobile post office shows up again anyway) without any accompanying writing!

[squirlyline]

Here's the letter I got back from UK CPM.. I wonder if they twigged!?

CPM_reply to LBC replies to GS_adj.pdf

[dx100uk]

and you already sent gladdy's that snotty letter?

 

dx

[brassnecked]

They haven't twigged or they are bluffing it out.

[squirlyline]

9 hours ago, dx100uk said:

and you already sent gladdy's that snotty letter?

 

Yup (they got both of them)

Edited April 22, 2020 by squirlyline

[squirlyline]

2 hours ago, brassnecked said:

They haven't twigged or they are bluffing it out.

I can't imagine if they bothered to read in to the letter that they did not wonder 'what's going on here!'.. hard to know if there is bluff or wilful ignorance going on!

[ericsbrother]

They will be hoping that you might cough up and both they and gladdys then earn a dishonest crust from this.

They arent going to admit being villains but they may well decide to quietly drop the matter after all as they have now been forwarned that they will have to spend more money on this with no certainty of getting it back.

 

It is the private parking co overall model that is the problem and none of them wouldn make a bean if they were honest and just.

[squirlyline]

Hi again, looks like Gallstones are back for another round in the ring... it appears these guys just can't get enough being slapped around and wasting paper!

In my opinion there are a couple of glaring contradictions in their cover letter to me. Plus inviting me to come in and be fined is a bit weird!  They also inserted a 3rd photo of the car spanning the immense period of 2 minutes.

Gladstones_demand_w_evidence_dated150520.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

On top of that they are still including the hugely discredited £60 extra charge. It should follow that asking for £160 should mean that the amount is not only unconscionable but also a penalty leading to the case being thrown out. Great for motorists but you have to question the sanity of the crooks.

[ericsbrother]

the poor dears, they are starving so ahve decided to give you another opportunity to fall for their taradiddles.

Not a LBA and I bet that their client has now wasted more on this than they can ever hope to recover.

The 3rd piccie is evidence they are obliged to produce at the outset so this kills any claim that would be brought using the POFA and there is a clause there about creating any liability rather than a keeper liability. They are hoping you suddenly have cold feet over this and do something to save them the embarrasment of having to lose more of their clients money.

[squirlyline]

18 hours ago, ericsbrother said:

Not a LBA and I bet that their client has now wasted more on this than they can ever hope to recover.

Yes, they seem to be going backwards at this stage!

[squirlyline]

I was just wondering if there is any need to reply to this last letter (as it is not an LBA).. 

I presume not, or just leave it till they feel like wasting more money on the cause and send me further demands?

 

Also just to highlight one of the contradictions I was referring to earlier; at the end of the letter it offers me 60 days to pay up and then goes on to give me only 30 days,

does this give them less credence from a legal perspective?

[dx100uk]

all twaddle simply designed to make you respond

 

as long as you don't move without telling them and the car is registered to your current address (V5C) then you do nothing other than get reading up 

[ericsbrother]

you keep the letter and if they are stupid enough to sue you it gets wheeled out but has little weight in itself