Wright Hassall letter, parking on yellow cross hatched area

joe.d_2

I see the advice here is to not ignore a parking charge, I am worried however that entering into discussions with these people will just encourage them more.

Also, I'm finding it hard to figure out who to contact anyway. I am not disputing the fact I parked there after all........

Redx

if you contact anyone, its the following (and not ZZPS)

1) VINCI, as they are the ones who issued any ticket (so you could send them the template letter and complain that they have set the debt collectors onto you as RK) - do not admit or infer who was driving or if there was a windscreen ticket - no names , no pack drill - just a debt dispute letter.

2) the BPA, for a breach of the CoP because you were never sent an NTK as RK for this event, so the first you have heard is this debt collector demand, supposedly from a solicitors office

as for what heppened on the day, that is for them to prove and you to keep stum , a no comment interview , ie:- prove it !

Guys_Dad

So, Wright Hassall have been instructed by ZZPS who in turn have been appointed by Vinci Park who have in turn been engaged by the landowner, whoever that may be.

What a costly chain - for the claimant. Just relax as you have passed any appeal stage and apart from a chain of threatograms, you only need fear a genuine court letter. In that case, keep calm and come back to us.

nigelbb

trisontana wrote: »

You can tell how phoney that letter is by (I bet) the phrase "we will have to refer this to our litigation department". If they are supposed to be solicitors they would not need a "litigation department", they are a law firm!

To be fair a large law firm would have different departments e.g. "litigation department", "conveyancing department", "wills department" etc although I really doubt that this is the case with this lot.