Yet another Parking Notice Charge at Doncaster Airport

Herzlos

You could barely make it up, but I suspect the irony is lost on them.

Mention that they must know the claim is completely baseless and is completely misrepresenting their position, presumably with the intent of intimidating you.

They state their client is ZZPS, the debt collector, and not the parking company. Only the parking company can instruct them to take action; the debt collector can do nothing. WH must be aware that their client is unable to issue proceedings.

As said, it reads like they are acting as a debt collector whilst trying to pretend to be a solicitor. The legalese is so bad it's most likely that the letter was written by ZZPS pretending to be WH.

And it's also worth mentioning that it's not been named/signed either.

You can also point out that the client has been informed of the drivers details twice, so they also know you are not liable according to POFA2012. I'd definitely mention that if contacting WH.

Giant_Hogweed

Thanks again, but I haven't yet given them the drivers details, just told them I wasn't the driver and that he lives abroad (he's my wife's brother). I've printed a letter off with his name and address, just not sent it yet but I will over the weekend.

As for the Wright Hassall letter, it just looks like a photocopy with my 'offence' details added. And if what you, Herzlos, (and ManxRed, RedX, Ralph-y, HooHoo , Umkomaas and The Deep to name a few) have said about them not being able to take me to court as they aren't the parking company or landowner (which I don't doubt for one second) then it makes me wonder-why are they continuing to pursue this? It must be obvious to them by now that I'm not going to give in to them so why bother? You'd think they'd just write it off and concentrate on the people they CAN fool and intimidate (one of my workmates told me today that his wife got a £45 'fine' from Parking Eye for an overstay in an Aldi car park in Castleford, and they just paid it as they couldn't be bothered with the hassle).


I'm going to report this to the SRA and I'll send them (ZZPS) my brother in laws details and see what their next step is.


Any further advice from those in the know please?

The_Slithy_Tove

Mick_Rog wrote: »

And if what you have said about them not being able to take me to court as they aren't the parking company or landowner (which I don't doubt for one second) then it makes me wonder-why are they continuing to pursue this? It must be obvious to them by now that I'm not going to give in to them so why bother? You'd think they'd just write it off and concentrate on the people they CAN fool and intimidate (one of my workmates told me today that his wife got a £45 'fine' from Parking Eye for an overstay in an Aldi car park in Castleford, and they just paid it as they couldn't be bothered with the hassle).

Because, like all junk mail (and this is no more than that), the cost of sending out these letters is minimal (and not the ridiculous amounts they pretend it does) compared with the potential returns from the gullible. Compared with that cost, it's not worth their time to assess each response into the won't-pay/might-pay-with-a-bit-more-pressure piles.

hoohoo

I would write to Wright Hassall.

Dear WH,

The debt is denied as I was not the driver and there is no keeper liability in this case. Please refer the debt back to the operator. Please can you also confirm whether the operator considers this a charge for breach of contract or a contractual charge.

They are usually quite good at this now, having been beaten around the head a forum members. The second question is a trap. They have to answer it, but they lose either way because this has been answered different ways in the past, so you can just confront them with their alternative reply at the right time.

Giant_Hogweed

Thanks Hoohoo, I'll do that.
My wife has also looked at the letter from Wright Hassall and she thinks it's a fake as there's no name or signature on it, and as she says, it's something she could knock up on Word in about 20 minutes!


(Not sure what the last sentence means though, can you explain it and the result of either answer in idiot proof terms please?)


:-(

hoohoo

Mick_Rog wrote: »

Thanks Hoohoo, I'll do that.
My wife has also looked at the letter from Wright Hassall and she thinks it's a fake as there's no name or signature on it, and as she says, it's something she could knock up on Word in about 20 minutes!


(Not sure what the last sentence means though, can you explain it and the result of either answer in idiot proof terms please?)


:-(

Parking charges can be for trespass, (no one is allowed to park here but you did), a contractual charge (you can park here if you like, cost £100), or breach of contract (you can park here if you obey the rules. If you disobey you will have caused us to lose money which we calculate at, ahem, £100). A contractual charge is easier to prove in law, as you don't have to show your loss calculations.

If the charge is for breach, the parking company get to keep all the money. If the charge is contractual, they have to fork out 20% to HMRC for VAT.

VCS have form for telling the IAS that the charge is contractual, then in court saying the charge is for breach.

So whatever Wright Hassall tell you, this forum can give you an example where VCS said something else.

Giant_Hogweed

Ok, thanks again, I'll write to WH, but you've stated that

"VCS have form for telling the IAS that the charge is contractual, then in court saying the charge is for breach."


yet almost every piece of advice on this and other threads says they'll never dare go to court because they'll invariably lose.
I take it they have taken some cases all the way?


Also Wright Hassall did 'sign' the letter, I didn't spot it as it was on the back of the letter! (if you can call it a signature its just a photocopy, Mrs Rog says its been copied from the internet).


hxxp://s1250.photobucket.com/user/MickRogSnr/media/Parking%20letter%20from%20solicitors%20signature.jpg.html


There is one other anomaly I've spotted. ZZPS are based in Surrey, Wright Hassall in Warwickshire yet the return address on the WH letter is a P.O.Box in Chester!


Any ideas on what's going on with the multi addresses please?

Giant_Hogweed

Letter to WH. Anyone got any amendments I should add please?


Dear Wright Hassall
Re PCN VC0*********
The debt is denied as I was not the driver and there is no keeper liability in this case. Please refer the debt back to the operator, whom I have already informed of this information. I am also going to reluctantly send them details of the person who was driving.
Please can you also confirm whether the operator considers this charge for breach of contract or a contractual charge.
Yours sincerely

hoohoo

Mick_Rog wrote: »

Ok, thanks again, I'll write to WH, but you've stated that

"VCS have form for telling the IAS that the charge is contractual, then in court saying the charge is for breach."


yet almost every piece of advice on this and other threads says they'll never dare go to court because they'll invariably lose.
I take it they have taken some cases all the way?


Also Wright Hassall did 'sign' the letter, I didn't spot it as it was on the back of the letter! (if you can call it a signature its just a photocopy, Mrs Rog says its been copied from the internet).


hxxp://s1250.photobucket.com/user/MickRogSnr/media/Parking%20letter%20from%20solicitors%20signature.jpg.html


There is one other anomaly I've spotted. ZZPS are based in Surrey, Wright Hassall in Warwickshire yet the return address on the WH letter is a P.O.Box in Chester!


Any ideas on what's going on with the multi addresses please?

Good point - they do court with other sites with similar signs. In those sites you can stop and read the signs. They dont do court with this site.

You also spotted the scam - ZZPS are just using WH headed notepaper. All correspondence goes back to ZZPS to handle. WH have agreed to this, so its not without their knowledge - its just...shady.

hoohoo

Mick_Rog wrote: »

Letter to WH. Anyone got any amendments I should add please?


Dear Wright Hassall
Re PCN VC0*********
The debt is denied as I was not the driver and there is no keeper liability in this case. Please refer the debt back to the operator, whom I have already informed of this information. I am also going to reluctantly send them details of the person who was driving.
Please can you also confirm whether the operator considers this charge for breach of contract or a contractual charge.
Yours sincerely

Why send details of the driver? Oh wait...I just remembered. Ha ha ha. Nice one.