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

[Happy54]

The owner of a vehicle received a parking ticket from smart parking and asked me to deal with it as i was the driver,  i disputed this as i believed i had entered one wrong digit.

 

Smart parking claim they rejected my appeal by letter that i did not receive but then started contacting me by email to refuse to give me any more information,

 

they then passed the debt on to DRP 

then zenith and

now finally CST law have sent a LBC to my address

 

i have not acknowledged any of the letters as they are addressed to Mrs and i am Mr.

I have now sent smart parking a SAR and received back the results in which they confirm i did enter a wrong digit but one letter in the same envelope is addressed to mrs and one mr.

 

just reading the BPA new rules i was perhaps under the false elusion this should of been cancelled at the first appeal

 

any help would be much appreciated. 

[dx100uk]

next time don't ever appeal.

 

please complete this

 

Have you received a Parking Ticket? - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group TEST

 

and scan up all comms in/out 

to one multipage PDF.

 

dx

 

[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.

[Happy54]

1 Date of the infringement

29/1/2020
 

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' d
10/02/2020

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

please do not put JPG Picture files into your post

 

3 Date received

13/2/2020
 

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

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the even
YES

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

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

Y
 

7 Who is the parking company?

Smart Parking Ltd

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Hardwick Road, Stockton on tees
 

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

BPA

 

docs1.pdf

[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?

[Happy54]

Yes that's correct and also it was a pay car park £2 for 14hrs. i spent 76mins at the car park before leaving.

[honeybee13]

I don't suppose you kept the ticket from the machine if that's how you paid, did you?

 

HB

[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.

[dx100uk]

might be prudent to mention the new CoP guidance specifically mention wrong reg is no longer a reason to issue a speculative invoice

 

Government CoP Proposals Out Today - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

[lookinforinfo]

Dear CST Law,

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

 

I think it is time to start kicking these quasi legal idiots a lot harder than we are doing currently.

 

Here for instance I think we should point out that getting the registration number wrong was not a reason for pursuing motorists. That was established  when Baroness Walmsley V TFL   [2005] EWHC 896 (Admin)  in the High Court of Justice won her case when she entered the wrong reg. number. Despite this decision  from the High Court being obiter, second rate legal companies and greedy parking companies persist in taking motorists to Court and losing.

 

Should this case go to Court despite having had  pointed out the futility of doing so, I will be asking the Court not only for exemplary damages, but I believe they breached my GDPR when they knew their case was 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 would also point out that the new Government Parking Code of Practice due out shortly and which Smart parking and CST Law will be only to well aware since it will severely hamper their money grubbing antics, includes the miscueing of registration numbers among the many unlawful methods currently employed by parking companies that will come to an end.

 

Should you decide to continue with this disgraceful charade of a case, I will look forward to hear the Judge throwing it out in Court.

 

Something along those lines................

 

[Happy54]

In answer to honeybee13

 

unfortunately it was a very windy day when i attended the hospital and the ticket blew out of my vehicle as i got back in and i never gave it a thought that i might need it again.

 

Thanks for all  the other advice i will as suggested wait to see what your thoughts are and the best letter to send off to cst law,

 

i have received  2 drp 2 zenith and 2cst letters up to now.

 

Once again thanks for all the help in what was developing into a very stressful situation.

 

There was a glaring error on the letter of rejection but i didn't want to state it on here incase i was required to use it if it went to court not sure how i would send it for a member to look privately at it.

[dx100uk]

no harm you are anon post your appeal in full here.

[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 

[brassnecked]

The De minimiss is of itself sufficient, also given ANPR inability to often distinguish between a 0 and O 

[Happy54]

Here as asked for is my correspondence between myself and smart parking the appeal was done on line so this is what i received back after sar to smart parking. If everything is ok i will type the letter proposed by FTM Dave(many thanks) and send it off to cst law & smart parking tomorrow.

 

sp.pdf (3).pdf

 

  

 

[dx100uk]

had to hide that

all you pers details are in file properties

which is why we say only upload .PDF files

 

dx

 

[AndyOrch]

Upload corrected

[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.

[Happy54]

Thanks for all the help letters have now been sent to smart & CST i will post up any further correspondence i receive from either of them.