Smart Parking/CST Law ANPR PCN Letter Of Claim - Matalan Car Park - wrong reg - Medtia Square Oldham Manchester

[Chipster1!]

Dear Consumer Group

 

Can anyone help me please?

 

I have received a Letter Before Claim for an outstanding amount of £185.00

 

I paid for my time in the car park but entered two of my registration digits in the wrong order. 

I appealed immediately to Smart Parking as it was blatantly obvious it was my car but I was denied. 

I appealed to POPLA but they found in Smart Parkings favour. 

 

I have received over 9 letters referring to this (each one more sinister) and each time they have addressed it to Mr and I am a Miss. 

I hoping I get the opportunity to point this out to them as we are all capable of making simple errors!

 

I read all of your responses from the Matalan PCN but it was an old thread and I'm just wondering if I should send them the same response Ericsbrother suggested or has there been a change since then?

 

They did keep quoting the Case in Law in the first few letters but not mentioned it since. 

I would be very grateful of any help please, I'm tired of their threatening letters.

 

Thank you very much

 

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG. People should be long later to advise you.

 

I've had to remove your attachment because you haven't covered up your name, address and the vehicle reg number. Perhaps you can anonymise that and repost it.

 

The letter mentions Debt Recovery Plus who can only ever issue threats on behalf of  not so Smart Parking. I don't think you have anything to worry about apart from seeing a series of threatograms.

 

Best, HB

[dx100uk]

please complete this

 

 

 

[Chipster1!]

1 Date of the infringement 24th May 2019

 

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]

Never received one.
 

[scan up BOTHSIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

3 Date received

Never received one.
 

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]

N/A
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?
Yes

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]

Yes
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

Yes
 

7 Who is the parking company?

Smart Parking
 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Medtia Square Oldham Manchester
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

POPLA
 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

2 Letters from Debt Recovery Plus LTD.  2 letters Debt Recovery Plus (they have different letterheads & designs).  2 letters from Zenith Collections and 2 letters from CST Law.

 

I tried to attach all of the letters as one multi page PDF as you requested but it wont let me.  Says there is a limit of 4.88.  Shall I send them individually?

 

And thank you very much for your time and help

 

I made a compressed zip file but it wont let me attache that either.

[dx100uk]

Simply properly redact your org pdf..read upload

 

Shame you appealed..

Next time dont!

 

Dx

[Chipster1!]

Thanks D.

 

This has got me all of a dither

 

I feel very naive,  I thought common sense would rule the day! 

 

docs1.pdf

[dx100uk]

you still left your docs unredacted!!

 

anyway i've done them now.

 

what date is the letter of claim please

 

dx

 

[brassnecked]

Just put the redacted PDFs and we can have a look at it (NotSo) Smart parking know that wrong reg is de minimis, a legal trifle, you paid, so no loss to sue for, however they wil  bully and bluster, all appeals are automatically refused.   then have a search in this forum for wrong reg number cases where a defence was successful to get the picture.

[Chipster1!]

Oh god, I'm sorry guys, I'm totally new to all this, I thought I'd obscured enough

 

The date of Letter Before Claim was 18th June but I only received it Friday 10th July.

[brassnecked]

You still have time to send a snotty letter in reply stating things the Team will suggest shortly, if you ignore it a Claimform will definitely follow, the Smart parking muppets have fewer braincells than a petrol head biker high on patrol vapour.

[Chipster1!]

I see what you mean now 'D', I'm sorry but thank you for doing it properly X

[FTMDave]

Which Ericsbrother letter were you referring to?  He has quite a library of snotty letters

[Chipster1!]

Haha, it was Smart Parking Matalan PCN POPLA appeal rejection. It was 8th May 2017.

It was a belter!

[FTMDave]

Could you post it up?

[Chipster1!]

I had to cut & paste, I'm not very technical, enjoy!

 

He wrote:-

 

would respond to this.

 

Start wth dear sirs, I am in receipt of your letter dated the 31st October 2017 and have noted its contents.

 

You state that I should consider this to be a letter before action or letter before claim.

Unfortunately for you I cannot accept this shoddily thrown together piece of tripe to be a LBA as it fails miserably to come anywhere near a lba as required under the revised Civil Procedure Regulations and so would expect a court to summarily dismiss any claim later made by you or your client on that basis.

 

However as you are the parking world third worst firm of solicitors I am not surprised you failed to put any effort into this taradiddle

 

so to make sure that there is no misunderstanding

I deny that any monies are owed to your client by myself as there is precedent case law that your clients greed has blindeed them to.

 

The same applies to the inflated amount of the claim, the POFA and contract law are very clear on this point and again plenty of examples of dismissed claims are in the public domain.

 

Your fondness for misquoting the decision of PE v Beavis makes it look like you have never read the full judgement but like the other rent a threats see it as a panacea for justifying any old coddswallop you care to trot out

 

It would be wise if you took your obligations you signed up to when being entered onto the SRA roll and advised your clients it is not in their interests to continue with this matter as they have no cause for action and I shall seek a full costs recover order for any civil claim made under the unreasonableness criteria.

 

Do not be polite to these bandits.

Dont forget, you can use the letter you send as evidence should they then continue

Edited November 20, 2017 by honeybee13
Paras

 

[FTMDave]

Cutting & pasting is fine!  We just need to tweak the bits that don't apply.

[Chipster1!]

Brilliant, thank you very much

[brassnecked]

Yes POFA won't apply as you appealed, and likely ID'd yourself as driver, but no claim due to de minimis and you paid will.

[FTMDave]

I see the letter was in response to a wrong reg. case very similar to yours, so well done on doing all the research to find it.

 

I've tweaked a bit below, adding two sentences due to a recent legal case and the BPA becoming a tiny bit decent.

 

The solicitors were different so I've cut out the bit insulting them - although fresh insults could be added

 

See what others think.

 

dear sirs, I am in receipt of your letter dated the 18th June 2020 and have noted its contents.

 

so to make sure that there is no misunderstanding

I deny that any monies are owed to your client by myself as there is precedent case law that your clients' greed has blinded them to.  Even the British Parking Association have given in and changed their stance.

 

The same applies to the inflated amount of the claim, the POFA and contract law are very clear on this point and again plenty of examples of dismissed claims are in the public domain.  Remember DJ Harvey at Lewes in May?

 

It would be wise if you took your obligations you signed up to when being entered onto the SRA roll and advised your clients it is not in their interests to continue with this matter as they have no cause for action and I shall seek a full costs recover order for any civil claim made under the unreasonableness criteria.

[Chipster1!]

Ooooh sounds fantastic to me but as we know, I know nowt!!

 

Thank you so much for your efforts and I'll hang fire until you tell me to go for it.

[FTMDave]

Good idea, in particular wait in case Ericsbrother comes onto the forum this afternoon.

[brassnecked]

Yes get it exactly correct as you have to show that POPLA were wrong also, finding against you

[FTMDave]

I wouldn't say you "know nowt" given you found an appropriate reply to an LBA for the right company for the right "offence" - well done!

 

The good news is that legally you're in the clear.  The wrong reg. nonsense is a case of "de minimis" AKA "the law does not deal with trivialities".  They got paid - end of.  A judge would laugh them at them in court.

 

Unfortunately most people don't know the law so these con merchants send out demands for money they well know is not owed, hoping motorists will wet themselves at the thought of court & cough up.  Sadly a lot do.

 

I added the bit about the BPA because even their own trade body has recently told them to accept appeals in cases like this, but hey, all they're interested in is £££.  I added the bit about Lewes because recently a PPC got a right kicking from a judge, also for making up all the fictitious "Unicorn Food Tax" (copyright EB).  Have a laugh at the following.

 

Hang fire for 24 hours to see if EB advises to change the letter, then give them both barrels.

 

 

[brassnecked]

As POPLA put this in their rejection decision:

 

"By entering the incorrect vehicle registration, the parking ticket is invalid for the appellant's vehicle to park."

 

Might be worth stating alongside the fact in law is de minimis,  you have safe possession of the actual ticket you paid for,  proving payment,  so was made  if they do try  their luck court the de minimis can be highlighted with caselaw.  Time POPLA had a refresher at law school the Term they use to justify rejection of Appeal, due to De Minimis rule, as payment was made, could be construed as an Unfair Term.

 

 

Just needs ericsbrother to give it the once over and you are good to go.

[ericsbrother]

the BPA code has changed since then so a parking co cant calim for such an error. now the change came about because there was a problem and your case being prior to the chnage in terms for operators doesnt make it enforceable as if they go to court they will have to explain why a defective term is better than the condition that replaces it in the  code they have to abide by.

 

As brassnecked says, there is no loss because you paid the prescrobed fee and that is more importnat in law than this error. in pracice the parking co's were losing claims and govt was getting twitchy hence the change. The IPC dont agree with the law and dont enforce their Code of Pracitce so a longer haul with one of their members befiore they get a salutory lesson.

So what to say? well, the 2 points mentioned, that the current CoP prevents operators from using such a reason to screw the public and there has been no loss because the  prescribed fee was paid and that crystallises the contract, not the inputting of a car reg as the contract is with the driver, not a piece of metal so the licence to park would apply to any vehicle under the control of the driver at the time.

Edited July 27, 2020 by ericsbrother