Wright Hassall - I've read 'Newbies' need advice please

Ok, so here is my proposal, which I appreciate we may not all agree with, but it is a bit more targeted than a generic trading standards complaint. Take it or leave it.

I recommend that a complaint is made to the managing partner of Wright Hassall:

I refer to your correspondence of [date]. I wish to make a complaint on the basis that your letter is threatening, misleading as to the law and an abuse of the process of debt recovery. I refer to SRA Warning Notice 11/06/2013 ("the Warning Notice").

(for MSE forum reference/background, see here: http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/guidance/warning-notices/Debt-recovery-work-and-relationships-with-debt-recovery-businesses--Warning-notice.page )

To the extent that the correspondence may have been sent by a third party, the letter is on Wright Hassall letterhead and the firm is responsible for the content. I wish to raise the following points:

1. Your letter states you or agents on behalf of your client will seek to obtain a CCJ which may affect
1.1. My ability to obtain credit
1.2. My ability to borrow funds
1.3 My ability to obtain employment
1.4. Be subject to bailiff enforcement or an attachment of earnings order.

All of the above points are misleading as to the position and may impair access to justice. The Court will determine any dispute if proceedings are commenced. In the event that a Judgment is awarded in your client's favour none of the above will occur provided that the Judgment is paid promptly. This is not made clear precisely to prompt the recipient into early payment and to discourage any defence of the action (however meritorious).

2. The full extent of Court enforcement is set out within the letter in a manner which is aggressive and intimidation without making the process of debt recovery clear (in clear disregard of the Warning Notice).

3. Your correspondence gives rise to no consideration of the recipient's position or any defence of the proposed action or consideration of negotiated settlement, only payment of the debt, which is neither admitted nor proven

4. At £146 the debt sought would appear to be set at a level beyond that which is likely to be recoverable in the small claims court (or at all) and may therefore misstate the correct legal position regarding the recovery of the parking charge in this matter, were your client to be successful.

5. The letter received appears to come from an individual who purports to be Head of Debt Recovery at Wright Hassall. Despite this, he is not listed on the firm's website and is not a registered solicitor. It is unclear as to what his position is or if he exists. It is further not clear that Wright Hassall have appropriately represented their status as required by the Warning Notice.

We expect you to accurately and openly represent your authority/status in all communications, and to convey in those communications the correct legal position with regard to debts and the debt recovery process.

I look forward to hearing from you.

cathartic, that.