PCN vinci now solicitors letter from Wright Hassall

Bobo88

Hi all,

Thanks for the replies. I'll try to address the points raised as best as I can but along with other people using the forum, I've found that I don't understand some of the terms being used. It's not that I haven't read the posts on here, more that I don't really understand a lot of what is being said/advised.

The template letter from lazydaisy is the one that I originally sent to Wright Hassall denying all knowledge of the pcn. I sent this to a number of directors within the company who replied saying that they had no knowledge of the letter but they would get somebody to look into it. Then I received a reply, direct from Wright Hassall.

The letter says numerous things but the main points are as follows, failure to pay this outstanding balance in full will result in my account being passed to their litigation team; the letter is not intended to be a formal letter before claim; if our client instructs us to issue a county court claim we will send a letter before claim; the charges applied to this balance are legal and are within the guidelines set out by the BPA.

I have contacted them disputing everything but they are saying that it's too late to go down any appeal route now as it has reached them. According to citizens advice my only options are pay or go to court and hope I win.

bod1467

Coulda woulda shoulda may recommend thinking about maybe possibly considering court action.

Does that sound threatening? I hope not, because that's exactly what they're saying.

Bobo88

I also reported them to the SRA, thanks for the link bazster

stator

Well done, sounds like you've confirmed they are still at the stage where they are threatening to take you to court but haven't done so. If your POPLA appeal is too late you have no option but to wait and see what they do (unless you want to pay of course). Unfortunately you have to wait 6 years until you know for sure they can't take you to court.

bazster

Bobo88 wrote: »

The template letter from lazydaisy is the one that I originally sent to Wright Hassall denying all knowledge of the pcn. I sent this to a number of directors within the company who replied saying that they had no knowledge of the letter but they would get somebody to look into it.

Well done on that, if everyone did this then the senior staff at WH would soon get fed up and start questioning whether this "relationship" with ZZPS is worth the Hassall.

Bobo88 wrote: »

Then I received a reply, direct from Wright Hassall.

The letter says numerous things but the main points are as follows, failure to pay this outstanding balance in full will result in my account being passed to their litigation team; the letter is not intended to be a formal letter before claim; if our client instructs us to issue a county court claim we will send a letter before claim; the charges applied to this balance are legal and are within the guidelines set out by the BPA.

Nah, WH has forwarded your letters to ZZPS who have replied using the WH letterhead again.

I would be inclined to write again to the same people you wrote to last time pointing out that if a solicitor is going to send you threats of legal action then you have no choice but to treat this as a Letter Before Claim. As such it is hopelessly inadequate and has been reported to the SRA accordingly, along with WH's denial that threats of legal action constitute a LBC. And then send another complaint to the SRA that WH is threatening you with legal action and yet denying this is a Letter Before Claim.

And while you are at it ask the WH senior staff to explain what basis they believe they have for seeking to charge you fees (whether described as an "admin fee" or anything else) given that you have no contractual relationship with them and have never instructed them nor requested any services from them. Tell them that you have reported them to the SRA for demanding fees under threat of legal action from someone who is not a client (and include this point in your next SRA complaint).

Bobo88 wrote: »

I have contacted them disputing everything but they are saying that it's too late to go down any appeal route now as it has reached them. According to citizens advice my only options are pay or go to court and hope I win.

Geez, why are you wasting your time with Citizens Advice? They don't know their a**e from their elbow and always give the wrong advice re private parking fake fines.

How could this possibly go to court? Right Hassle admits that its client is ZZPS, and yet ZZPS has no claim against you, none. The time to start taking it seriously is if you receive a Letter Before Claim, or real court papers, from Vinci or from solicitors acting for Vinci (and if that happens I'll eat my foot).

ZZPS and Right Hassle are nothing but an entertaining sideshow.

Bobo88

Does it sound threatening? To me it does yeah, I've never been in this situation before so any letter sent to me from a solicitors (or somebody claiming to be solicitors) does sound threatening.

No the letter I received back is definitely from Wright Hassall, I know this because the template letters sent out by zzps have zzps written vertically on the letter on the left hand side of the page, and it's sent on cheap paper. This doesn't have zzps written on it and it's been signed by one of the solicitors.

I will send the letters off that you have advised and see where that gets me. Thanks again for all the advice, I appreciate it.

The_Deep

Keep up the pressure on WH. This is (was) a highly respected firm established in 1846. I doubt that they will wish to become entangled with A PPC once they are fully aware of the odour which such an association can attract.

bazster

Bobo88 wrote: »

No the letter I received back is definitely from Wright Hassall, I know this because the template letters sent out by zzps have zzps written vertically on the letter on the left hand side of the page, and it's sent on cheap paper. This doesn't have zzps written on it and it's been signed by one of the solicitors.

I still don't believe it. The template letters are mass-mailed from a mailing house, hence the cheap paper etc. It's entirely possible (likely even) that the arrangement between WH and ZZPS involves proper headed WH stationery for custom letters and an agreement as to which solicitor appears to have signed the letters.

Just ask yourself, why would a solicitor threaten to refer something to their litigation department? It's a solicitor's firm, it is a litigation department! This referral-for-litigation baloney is pure debt-collector B.S.

Howsoever, in the unlikely event that WH really has got a solicitor to write to you then this too is good: either the solicitor has done it for nothing (which hurts for a lawyer!), or they've charged ZZPS £50 for it! Either way someone is going to wonder why they are bothering.

You need to forward this latest letter to the SRA as supplementary evidence of WH threatening legal action on behalf of someone (ZZPS) who it knows perfectly well is the wrong party.

The reference to the BPA is also a giveaway and a red herring. WH is a solicitor's firm, they are not regulated or authorised by the BPA, and they cannot charge fees to someone who is not their client, still less under threat of litigation. They could have a bash at claiming costs on behalf of their client if they wanted, but that's not what they've said: they've demanded a fee from you. What the hell for? They haven't done anything for you!

I can't believe the mess WH is getting itself into with this.

debsydoodah

Howsoever, in the unlikely event that WH really has got a solicitor to write to you then this too is good: either the solicitor has done it for nothing (which hurts for a lawyer!), or they've charged ZZPS £50 for it! Either way someone is going to wonder why they are bothering.

You need to forward this latest letter to the SRA as supplementary evidence of WH threatening legal action on behalf of someone (ZZPS) who it knows perfectly well is the wrong party.

I have only received verbal confirmation that WH are instructed so still waiting on the letter before firing off the complaint letter as suggested:o

Really heartened by the advice from those much more switched on than me - one thing I would like to know as I have more than one PCN to deal with, is in the UNLIKELY event that I do end up having to face court proceedings - which I would do rather than pay these bullies, do they have to deal with each ticket separately or would they look to lump them together?

Coupon-mad

it's been signed by one of the solicitors.

Solicitors don't sign their letters with a name. Debt collectors often do.