ZZPS pursuing schedule 4 POFA

Joe980 · 13 August 2017 at 5:52PM

Hi all,

I have spend the past couple of hours looking through the forums and reading Coupon-Mad's extensive list of guidance but I'm not sure I can see anything relevant to the situation I'm in.
I have already had a formal letter of claim from "Wright Hassall" which I'm gathering are just ZZPS using a letterhead, I responded to that letter with a defence I had seen on this forum relating to the fact that I am the keeper and no driver has been identified etc...

I was initially sent a PCN via the post from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd' February 2017, I ignored this and subsequent correspondence until the formal letter of claim, I have now been sent a response to my reply stating that I am too late to state that I am not the driver and that I should have done that within 28 days of the PCN - I can't attach a copy of the letter as an image yet... but the url to the image is - i.imgur.com/UcmCnHP.jpg

I'm just wondering if anyone has had any experience at this stage and can offer any advice on whether I should ignore this, or what reply/defence I can send in relation to this?

Many thanks!
Joe

Coupon-mad · 13 August 2017 at 6:02PM

Send an adapted version of Johnersh's letter to WH. Search 'Wright Hassall cathartic' to find it, and change the search to 'show POSTS' (not threads).

Or, ignore it because CEL file their OWN court claims, they don't use solicitors, this is really only a frightener. Up to you.

In the end you will be defending a CEL claim (easy enough for a keeper).

beamerguy · 13 August 2017 at 6:40PM

http://i.imgur.com/UcmCnHP.jpg

Another Tim Hawker load of rubbish

This is actually from the idiots ZZPS using pimped out letter heading
of Wright Hassall
Where they say "Instructed by ZZPS" THEY ACTUALLY MEAN ...
"ZZPS HAS INSTRUCTED ZZPS

Follow what coupon-mad has said, but this letter from the Hawker
bod is well known and to be ignored

HOWEVER .... It is a very misleading letter where Hawker is trying
to extort money from you

Such letters are of interest to Trading Standards as they protect
people from rogue traders.

One would have thoughr that after 170 years in business as solicitors,
Wright Hassall would not stoop so low as to pimp out letterheads ?

Joe980 · 17 August 2017 at 8:25PM

Thanks to both,
I will follow the advice to ignore it and see if they progress it further - In the mean time i'll start drafting my defence for CEL from the other threads here.

Thanks,
Joe

Softwaremad_2 · 18 August 2017 at 4:39PM

The question was asked directly in court of Tim Hawker if WH were actually responsible for that letter, it was shut down by the judge with an of course it is as it has WH header on it so it is obviously from them. Tim Hawker had said yes it was theirs also.

No one wants to admit to renting out headers - ZZPS making referrals are the very dodgy part of this - they do this for many companies regardless - and claims may have the original creditor noted upon them - however questions still arise as to who is actually running the show there.

Joe980 · 8 October 2017 at 9:37PM

Hi Guys,
Sorry to bump this up but I'm just curious as to how long I should expect any official correspondence about any court progression on this sort of case?

The letter they sent me stated they would wait until 23rd August 2017 to give me time to pay - I obviously didn't and ignored their letter (which they sent in response to my defence to them)
and I haven't heard anything, no letters in the post, nothing, it's now 8th October.

What are the timescales they have to abide by for these things and would I have heard by now if they were taking it further?

Thanks,
Joe

Redx · 8 October 2017 at 9:42PM

6 years is the statute on issuing an MCOL

its been that way since 1973 !!!

The_Deep · 9 October 2017 at 9:11AM

This is actually from the idiots ZZPS using pimped out letter heading
of Wright Hassall
Where they say "Instructed by ZZPS" THEY ACTUALLY MEAN ...
"ZZPS HAS INSTRUCTED ZZPS

Should this not merit a complaint to the SRA?

beamerguy · 9 October 2017 at 9:56AM

The_Deep wrote: »

This is actually from the idiots ZZPS using pimped out letter heading
of Wright Hassall
Where they say "Instructed by ZZPS" THEY ACTUALLY MEAN ...
"ZZPS HAS INSTRUCTED ZZPS

Should this not merit a complaint to the SRA?

Deep old chap, you of all people know about the "brotherhood"
of the SRA and it's members ???

Joe980 · 9 October 2017 at 9:59AM

Redx wrote: »

6 years is the statute on issuing an MCOL

its been that way since 1973 !!!

Ok thanks for that, I'm imminently about to Move house and I don't want to suddenly find a CCJ on my name - do you have any advice on who I should write to to change my details? Seeing as I haven't heard anything from them in a while - I was hoping they'd have told me if they weren't pursuing it...

beamerguy · 9 October 2017 at 10:29AM

Joe980 wrote: »

Ok thanks for that, I'm imminently about to Move house and I don't want to suddenly find a CCJ on my name - do you have any advice on who I should write to to change my details? Seeing as I haven't heard anything from them in a while - I was hoping they'd have told me if they weren't pursuing it...

You advise the PPC, CEL

Request confirmation they have updated their records.

They instructed ZZPS to harass you and you have no
obligation to advise them.

The responsibility remains with CEL to inform all parties

ZZPS pursuing schedule 4 POFA

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free