UKCPS/CST 2* MNPR PCN's Letter before claim - No Stopping - Gateway House, Piccadilly

[Ellemar21]

Hi all,

I have received a “Letter before claim” from CST Law on behalf of UKCPS Ltd in relation to 2 “No stopping” parking charges they have not received payment for.

 

I understand from the information on the many similar threads (thank you) that this is something I must respond to, and the letter states I have 30 days to respond. 

I have learned a lot from the advice throughout the forum but wanted to seek out some more advice before I respond, please.

 

To give some background, the “parking charges” relate to two drop-offs at Piccadilly, on 22nd and 25th November 2019.

There was no parking.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, but not the driver.

 

The two Notices to Keeper were sent 18th December 2019, so both more than the 14 days

I understand they should have been sent within (have I got this right?

 

There was no windscreen ticket as there was no parking, and the NtK refers to MNPR).

The NtK also says “Non-POFA” and, in the general text on the back, it states that my details were obtained from the DVLA - is this right if they are not following POFA? 

Several letters followed from DRP and now I have this letter from CST Law saying I now owe £320 (originally £60 per instance).

 

I have not acknowledged or responded to anything so far.

I know I need to respond to the LBC but can someone please confirm whether I write to CST or UKCPS please (or both)?

 

I’d also be grateful for a general steer on the points to make.

I’ve read so much information that I’ve tied myself in knots!

Thanks in advance.

[dx100uk]

snotty letter to cst

 

dx

 

[FTMDave]

Yes, you need to reply to CST, especially with two tickets involved.  Look up "snotty letter" on the forum, tweak one to fit your case, and post up a draft here.  You need to show them you'd be big trouble if they did do court.

 

Well done on all the work you've put in investigating POFA, the fact there was no parking, etc.

[Ellemar21]

Thank you both for your quick and helpful responses, and for all the other useful information in the forum. I’ve drafted a potential response which I’ve copied below if you wouldn’t mind having a read and giving some feedback please? (Apologies in advance if there are things I have misunderstood and therefore not construed correctly!)

 

I write in response to a Letter Before Claim, received in relation to PCN Numbers xxxx and xxxx. I dispute the debt on a number of points and confirm I will not be making any payment. 

 

Given your client chooses not to comply with the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, on what basis does it intend to recover these spurious amounts from me as the registered keeper of the vehicle, but not the driver?

 

Furthermore, on what basis were my details obtained from the DVLA given that (a) UKCPS does not comply with POFA 2012, (b) your client is not a BPA member, and (c) there would appear to be no lawful basis for obtaining them under the Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002? I will be making separate complaints to both the DVLA and the Information Commissioner in relation to the release of my personal details, which is a clear breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation.

 

Your client may not be aware but there is no such thing as “no stopping” in a parking contract; indeed, when considering whether to park, you would need to stop in order to read any relevant signage before deciding whether to park. As such, there is a grace period defined in law. Given that a private parking company cannot enforce general traffic laws, the penalty for “no stopping” is unlawful.

 

May I also take this opportunity to remind you that you have no right to increase the amount of the original penalty to cover the “nominal contribution to [your] client’s losses as a direct result of [my] non-payment”. Whilst your client chooses not to follow POFA, you and it may benefit from reading it. 

 

Should your client wish to instigate legal proceedings in relation to this alleged debt, it will be defended vehemently and I shall be seeking a full costs recovery order for unreasonable behaviour. I shall also seek damages for breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, as per VCS v Philip, Liverpool CC Dec 2016.

[dx100uk]

urm..playing far too many cards there and certain not insulting them enough IMHO.

 

and i wouldn't ever be using the word penalty like you did in post 1 with Fine. they are not fines and they are not penalties, they are speculative invoices.

 

.... for breaking some imaginary contract the driver entered into when proceeding onto private land that may or may not have its parking management covered by an upto date, currently paid for annually contract , between the land owner and VCS.

 

however this is all overridden by the fact all the land is covered by Airport Byelaws enforceable only by the landowner in a magistrates court.

[Ellemar21]

Thanks dx, I see what you mean about playing too many cards so I have tried to come up with something less detailed and with a bit more insult! I’ve also removed reference to the “penalty” and stole a line of yours, combined with some other stuff from the forum. 
 

I write in response to your so-called “Letter Before Claim”, received in relation to PCN Numbers xxxx and xxxx, issued by UKCPS for alleged parking breaches.

 

I am writing to confirm that I have no intention of paying these ridiculous and made-up sums of money for allegedly breaking some imaginary contract with your client.

 

Aside from the fact that I was not the driver of the vehicle, this whole claim is a nonsense and I’m sure any Judge would agree.

 

Should your client wish to proceed with this farcical claim, I’ll be seeking recovery of costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour, as well as damages for breach of the DPA 2018.

 

Again, any thoughts are welcome and appreciated.

[FTMDave]

Much, much better - well done!

[dx100uk]

 

great research.

now you are learning.

 

this is why we always say 

NEVER APPEAL

NEVER FILE  A DETAILED DEFENCE (should a court claim ever ever actually come.)

 

it keeps them guessing how clever you REALLY are

 

 

[FTMDave]

Send it off tomorrow with a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

 

I would write "COPIED TO UKCPS" at the bottom and invest in a second 2nd class stamp, with another CoP.  That is because I am sure CST Law would delight in a court case starting, even if their clients' case is pants - after all, it'd be £££ for them.  Let UKCPS know too that a court case would result in a serious hole in their wallet.

[Ellemar21]

Thank you both for your help - it’s much appreciated. I’ll make the suggested addition and send the letter to both parties. 
I’ll update if/when I hear further from CST or UKCPS

[FTMDave]

2 minutes ago, Ellemar21 said:

I’ll update if/when I hear further from CST or UKCPS

 

Hopefully never!

[FTMDave]

Have a look at post 8 of flusterer's thread.  He/she has found out that sometime between 02.01.20 and 04.03.20 UKCPS put up loads of new signs.  Now why would they do that?  If their signage had been alright, there would have been no need to put up all the new ones - obviously the signage was pants.

[FTMDave]

Have a look at posts 3, 9 & 10 on Spannerz's thread.  He's sussed out there was another installation of new signs after you were ticketed.

[Ellemar21]

Hi all,

 

I received a letter from UKCPS today in response to my snotty letter. I got one for each “parking notice” stating that the parking charge has been passed to DRP and I need to contact them. It states UKCPS will not enter into further correspondence because the matter is with DRP.

 

Nothing else from DRP or CST Law as yet.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Ellemar21

[dx100uk]

oh well you know what a dca is as you've read up..

or seen my red signature below

 

dx

 

[lookinforinfo]

That's strange one would have thought that the matter was with CST. Mind you they are probably even less competetent than the unregulated debt collector that is  DR+ so it may be a shrewd move. Does look as if they have drawn back from litigation perhaps realising that stopping is not waiting.

In the meantime, just in case they revert to legal threats, could you please fill in the attached form

 

it will give us more info with which you should be able to batter Smart should they come back at you later.

[Ellemar21]

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture] 

(must be received within 14 days from the Incident)

 

please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement

22nd Nov 2019

25th Nov 2019
 

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

18th Dec 2019 (both)
 

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

please do not put JPG Picture files into your post

 

3 Date received

N/k
 

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

No - states “Non-POFA” at the top 
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

Yes - zoomed in photo of the car on each NtK showing registration with no context. Unsure whether any other photos held.
 

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

No 
 

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

N/a
 

7 Who is the parking company?

UKCPS

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Piccadilly Gateway, Manchester
 

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

Their letters have BPA logo but I have checked BPA could not see them listed.
 

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

 Several letters from DRP,  then a Letter before Claim from CST Law, which is the first thing I responded to with the wording I put together above (#6)

 

[FTMDave]

Real hard cases UKCPS, aren't they?  I wouldn't mess with them.

 

"Cough up or we'll take you to court!"

"Go on then".

"Er ... we're not going to write to you any more, so there, ner ner ner ner ner".

 

Relax now, the next move is up to them, if they have the gonads.