ZZPS "passing account to litigation" (Wright Hassall)

Derek2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Look at page one of the forum - how many Wright Hassall threads are being started unnecessarily this week...why? The forum already has threads about this lot.

Search the forum for the keyword 'Hassall' to find this discussed lots of times. Anyway the search of the forum will explain it all and what others have done who have already had these silly letters.

Just because the topic is the same doesn't mean everything is answered by another thread. I've read countless threads and a lot of them get shot down by people like you telling people to read other threads. I had specific questions, such as what constitutes an NTK and whether what I had received was a valid notification. Why shouldn't I start a thread to ask?

Coupon-mad

Because we can't cope.

bod1467

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Because we can't cope.

... with the number of new threads. This is a volunteer-run forum - nobody here is getting paid to help people on this forum, yet the number of people seeking help is increasing markedly. (I guess we're victims of our own success).

Derek2

So your issue isn't necessarily the content of a thread but rather the volume of them? I understand that, but you should understand that some of us do read other threads including the lengthy sticky at the top but find we are still unsure. There is a hell of a lot of content here and it is tough as a new member to digest and understand everything, but I assure you I am trying.

I hope from my use of terms in this thread you can sense I have tried to educate myself using the content available here, and haven't simply signed up and hit 'new thread' without spending several days trawling through other such threads.

Red_line

I,m in the same situation as many, received a parking charge pre Xmas and ignored it (not the smartest move I have ever made) recently received a letter from wright hassall requesting I pay £168 and if not they would seek a CCJ. Would appreciate any advise anyone can offer. I'm aware I'm well down the road on this.

Umkomaas

Please read the zillions of recent threads on here and on PePiPoo about RightHassle and, unless your circumstances are totally and utterly different (and I don't mean a different car park!), then follow the advice in those threads.

We can't type out the very same advice day in - day out!

Red_line

Understand the constant request for help from newbies can be challenging/tiring. I had taken time to read zillions of threads as you suggested prior to requesting assistance, unfortunately after several hours of reviewing threads I was unable to gain sufficient advise or locate a thread that addressed my circumstances. As I previously explained I have foolishly ignored previous communications from VCS then wright hassall and the 28 day appeal period has long passed. Do I write a letter to SRA using the advise from other threads (Bazster) or is there another route I need to take.

Captain_Krunch

You could
1. Keep ignoring but keep all the paperwork and only respond if a LBA arrives or a claim. Why stick your head over the parapet now or
2. Send a debt is denied letter to right hassle. They will probably ignore it and continue to send their rubbish but it makes them look unreasonable. It also means they compromise their clients KADOE contract with the DVLA.

HO87

Red_line wrote: »

Understand the constant request for help from newbies can be challenging/tiring. I had taken time to read zillions of threads as you suggested prior to requesting assistance, unfortunately after several hours of reviewing threads I was unable to gain sufficient advise or locate a thread that addressed my circumstances. As I previously explained I have foolishly ignored previous communications from VCS then wright hassall and the 28 day appeal period has long passed. Do I write a letter to SRA using the advise from other threads (Bazster) or is there another route I need to take.

Yes and complain that Wright Hassall are issuing threats on behalf of an alleged debtor that are not in fact a debtor. (ZZPS will NOT have purchased the debt they have simply been commissioned to write a series of chasing letters - that includes a WH letter if needs be).

Also understand that with each effectively repetitious thread there is a tendency for advice to be slightly diluted as we resort to abbreviations and references to earlier threads.

If you have read through the Newbies thread you should have picked up the fact that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is a requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act if it is the PPC's intention to invoke keeper liability. PPC's do not have to follow POFA and many are starting to ignore it and resort to practices - which were very much freer and easier - that preceded 1/10/2012. That said they frequently continue to use documents that mimic POFA requirements - you can draw your own conclusions as to why they choose to do so.

Along with time limits and procedures to be followed POFA sets out the minimum requirements for information that must be included in Notice to Keepers. There are two types:

The first (as set out in para 8, Schedule 4, Protection Freedoms Act) which follows the issue of a PCN (formally known as a Notice to Driver and less formally as a "windscreen ticket"). This NtK must arrive between Day 28 and Day 56.

The second is as set out in para. 9, Sch. 4 POFA and is issued most commonly where ANPR systems are in use and no NtD is issued at the time. This variety of NtK must arrive before Day 14.

You can read what must be in these NtK's here

If we interpret the Schedule strictly, as of course the PPC;s seek to do, then I have yet to see a NtK that complies with the requirements. The most common and glaring omission is the identification of the creditor. Merely putting the PPC's details at the end of the PCN isn't sufficient - the DfT issued guidance which specifies that the creditor must be identified. You might reasonably conclude that that means that the PCN should show a section like this:

Creditor: A N Other PPC Ltd, 22, Blogg Street, Bloggshire. Company No. 12345678.

I have never seen such a NtK

Without being rude using this forum means employing self-help and that means doing a lot of reading. From that point of view imagine what it was like only a few years ago where there was no forum to go to and no available advice. Those of us who were about then were obliged to feel our way - and at that time it really was the wild west.

Coupon-mad

Red_line wrote: »

Understand the constant request for help from newbies can be challenging/tiring. I had taken time to read zillions of threads as you suggested prior to requesting assistance, unfortunately after several hours of reviewing threads I was unable to gain sufficient advise or locate a thread that addressed my circumstances. As I previously explained I have foolishly ignored previous communications from VCS then wright hassall and the 28 day appeal period has long passed. Do I write a letter to SRA using the advise from other threads (Bazster) or is there another route I need to take.

All other threads about Wright Hassall are the same situation as yours. People don't get that letter unless they've ignored or lost at IAS appeal (you are too late to try, so what...so are thousands of poeple...doesn't matter). Search the forum if you have not already done so (not Google, not 'VCS' as your keyword). 'Hassall' as your keyword finds all the other threads every day about the same thing; no case is different.

You should report them to the SRA, yes, the more complaints about this misleading rubbish, the better.

We have been ignoring letters like this for a decade. Nothing has changed. The sky does not fall in by collecting such trash in a file marked 'scam'.