Appealing against ZZSP limited - your help please

enfield_freddy

why bother ? , that letter will be read by zzps , not wright hastle


"I would like to inform you that this private parking notice is disputed and denied in full


please refer this back to TPS.


full stop




why bother wasting your energy?


wright hastle is "zzps" , neither of them can issue court papers , and the moment papers are laid (by tps) they loose all commission.


they are really getting under your nose ,


if TPS thought they had a valid claim they would have perused it many mths ago


If it gets to court , you would easily win , they know that.


and to quickly add , why are you sending a email to debt.support? you deny the debt , you are not interested in there "support"

Umkomaas

You can't be sure what any of them are going to do post-Beavis, so I'd treat the letter from WH as a (sort of) LBA and launch your response in full, demanding they address the matter as per the Practice Direction protocol.

The more they are aware that you know the ropes and are likely to bite back, the better the chance they'll dip out and seek out the more low-hanging fruit.

jakeschofield89

I am now feeling much more relaxed about the whole situation. Having done a lot more reading around and the way events seem to be going....

So i have wrote to them twice now. And done some correspondence via email. First response I got was a generic FAQ sheet. Did not respond to any of my specific points. So I wrote back again here is the gist of it:

Firstly I would like to stress once again that I have no legal representation. I have read and used ‘advice’ from online forums during my research as I am a member of the public with no prior knowledge of this subject. No template letters have been used I have specifically been composing my correspondence.

In my previous letter I specifically asked to have my particular concerns addressed; not to be replied with a generic FAQ information sheet. Nevertheless you have responded with an information sheet. Therefore I will reiterate my points:

1. I dispute the parking charge notice and will not be paying it.



2. I dispute that your client ZZPS has any claim to make over me.



3. Your letter is NOT compliant with The Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct, Annex A Para 2. Further information I require is:


a. A clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based

b. A list of the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely on.

c. An itemised breakdown of your clients’ losses as a result of this parking incident.

d. An itemised breakdown of the landowner’s losses as a result of this incident.



There are other areas of the practice direction where information had been provided to me but it is not accepted as fact. I will also be using this in my defense. As you have referenced the practice direction in your letter you obviously know that these facts are required and I expect you to fully comply with your obligations.

4. My defense will rest upon:

a. mitigating circumstances IE that the permit (which I have in my possession) fell off

b. The charge levied is not commercially justifiable as no money has been lost. I already pay for the parking space.

c. I have explained to you that I will be using images of signage in the car park as well as the permit itself in my defence. The signage specifically states that pre-authorised cars parking in a pre-allocated space are allowed to park in this car park. I clearly fall under this definition.


I would like to remind you that the Court has powers to apply sanctions for non-compliance with the Practice Direction under Para 4, if you wish to continue legal proceedings then please send a fully compliant Letter Before Claim within 14 days. If I hear no further from you then I will consider this matter closed.

I would be grateful if this time you could reply to the specific concerns raised in this letter



A letter in the post then arrived which seemed to be addressing a few of the direct concerns I had raised. The best part though was the back pedalling RE letter of claim.

They stated that the letter originally sent entitled 'Formal Letter of Claim' was not a 'Letter before Claim' which they would have been required to send prior to legal action.
Further proof of the underhand tactics they will use to try and trick you into paying.

Today another copycat letter arrived EXACTLY the same as another I have received. Clearly ran out of ideas and now recycling templates. I am now going to save up a stash of these letters and when I hit 10 make a complaint to the SRA I think.

So there is 1 question remaining do I send them a final letter stating in nice terms cease and desist sending me letters, this is harrasment. I am not paying the only way i will ever pay is if you take me to court and I lost (which is very unlikely). Or would this be waving a red rag to a bull and unnecesarily goading them into taking me to court which at the moment seems very unlikely????

Any advice appreciated. Thought I would just post an update in case anyone else is in a situation like me and wondering how mine is panning out.

ManxRed

Their case is so weak, I would personally go for the 'either begin proceedings within the next 21 days or I will consider the matter closed' letter.

This basically calls their hand.