Yet another Parking Notice Charge at Doncaster Airport

Giant_Hogweed

Thanks Hoohoo, that makes sense as the signs are about A4 size and you'd have to stop to read them anyway!
As for the WH letter Mrs Rog said its been copied from the internet and its something she could knock up in about 20 minutes on Word! But the Chester PO Box is a puzzle as ZZPS are based in Surrey, so I can't fathom that one out!
One last thing, shall I inform them who was the driver or keep my powder dry on that one? It might kill them stone dead (or maybe not) or they may continue which in effect accuses me of lying?
I've drafted a complaint to the SRA, anyone like to add /amend anything before I post it please?




I am currently in dispute with a company called VCS over an alleged traffic offence from 29-05-2015 an ‘offence’ I have already informed them I didn’t commit as I wasn’t the driver. VCS have not followed any of the guidelines in the Practice Direction and have now passed on the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to a debt collecting company named ZZPS Limited who of course, added another £50 to the original invoice charge (12-09-2015). They in turn after threatening litigation have passed my details on to Wright Hassall LLP (see attached letter dated 12-10-2015) who have also added a £30 administration fee (not allowed under your guidelines I believe) and threatened to recommend to their client (ZZPS Ltd) that they take me to court to obtain a CCJ against me, something I’ve researched and found ZZPS cannot do as only VCS or the landowner can do that.

Wright Hassalls letter comes over as an attempt to frighten and intimidate me into paying up on pain of a court appearance, added costs and a CCJ or even a Warrant of Execution (instructing a bailiff).

But more worrying is how amateurish the letter is from a solicitor. There is no name or signature on the letter, just a photocopied ‘signature’ on the rear of the letter (see attachment). In fact the whole thing looks like it’s been photocopied and my details added. Also despite Wright Hassalls address being Leamington Spa, the return to sender address on the envelope is a PO Box in Chester, raising further concerns that this may not be genuine.

I suspect Wright Hassall may be allowing the debt collecting company to use their letterheads as a way of adding more weight to their demands and this needs investigating as its very underhand behaviour and may lead many people to pay extra ‘administration fees’ that have been added illegally.


Any thoughts before I send it?

Herzlos

Mick_Rog wrote: »

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?

They've got to court for other sites but the set-up on this one is so dodgy they haven't done so yet.

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).

I don't think that counts as a signature - it's not a named solicitor, just the companies name in a handwriting font.

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

Wright Hassal are allowing ZZPS to use their headed paper and pretend to be WH. Responses go back to ZZPS and WH see nothing of it. That's why I suggested writing a complaint letter directly to a senior partner of Wright Hassal, like Nick Abell, and see what he has to say about such a dodgy practice. Then, based on how he replies, you can report him to the SRA directly! :j

https://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/our-people/people/nickabell/

Plus, his hourly rate will be way above the paralegals that usually deal with ZZPS, and he might be annoyed enough about the whole thing to do something about it (or turn out to have a spine).

Herzlos

I wouldn't name the driver, unless they are out of jurisdiction. You don't want to lose POFA2012 protection.

Mick_Rog wrote: »

I am currently in dispute with a company called VCS over an alleged traffic offence from 29-05-2015 an ‘offence’ I have already informed them I didn’t commit as I wasn’t the driver. VCS have not followed any of the guidelines in the Practice Direction and have now passed on the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to a debt collecting company named ZZPS Limited who of course, added another £50 to the original invoice charge (12-09-2015). They in turn after threatening litigation have passed my details on to Wright Hassall LLP (see attached letter dated 12-10-2015) who have also added a £30 administration fee (not allowed under your guidelines I believe) and threatened to recommend to their client (ZZPS Ltd) that they take me to court to obtain a CCJ against me, something I’ve researched and found ZZPS cannot do as only VCS or the landowner can do that.

Wright Hassalls letter comes over as an attempt to frighten and intimidate me into paying up on pain of a court appearance, added costs and a CCJ or even a Warrant of Execution (instructing a bailiff).

But more worrying is how amateurish the letter is from a solicitor. There is no name or signature on the letter, just a photocopied ‘signature’ on the rear of the letter (see attachment). In fact the whole thing looks like it’s been photocopied and my details added. Also despite Wright Hassalls address being Leamington Spa, the return to sender address on the envelope is a PO Box in Chester, raising further concerns that this may not be genuine.

I suspect Wright Hassall may be allowing the debt collecting company to use their letterheads as a way of adding more weight to their demands and this needs investigating as its very underhand behaviour and may lead many people to pay extra ‘administration fees’ that have been added illegally.


Any thoughts before I send it?

I'd probably start with Wright hassal - you've recieved a claim letter than you believe is suspicious because of all the points you've mentioned.

Add a bullet pointed list:
* Wright Hassal cannot take any action because their client (ZZPS) is a debt collector and not a party to the supposed contract, and Wright Hassal must know that.
* The letter hasn't been signed by anyone
* The return address matches ZZPS and not any Wright Hassal address
* The letter is attempting to intimidate the lay person by mentioning CCJ's and Bailiffs, despite Wright Hassal being unable to take any action and a CCJ can only be applied for in extreme circumstances.

You feel the quality of the letter makes you suspect it wasn't written by a solicitor, and in fact you believe it was written by ZZPS, which makes the additional fee suspect as well.

Then you can follow up with the back story; VCS are chasing you over an alleged parking invoice, which they passed to Debt Recovery Plus, who passed it over to ZZPS (also Debt Recovery Plus) who have now claimed to have passed it over to Wright Hassal (you suspect also ZZPS/DRP). As such, you want them to look into what is an obvious breach of solicitors conduct.

Giant_Hogweed

The driver lives in the Phillipines, he is surely out of jurisdiction?

Also they went straight to ZZPS (not DRP, although you do say they are one and the same) . The address I mentioned is a 'Return to sender' address on the back of the envelope. The WH letter has a Warwick landline (is it their own?) to call for payments.

And I'm not sure what you mean by PoFA2012 protection. What might I lose? I've not gone into it all as deep as maybe I should, just took advice from you more learned people.

Redx

my opinion ?

they are not one and the same, they are 2 different debt collectors, albeit that you can ignore all debt collectors (but maybe not right hassle)

DRP and Zenith and PCS are one and the same afaik

ZZPS is the old Roxburghe reincarnated by one of the old directors afaik

ZZPS may wel use the WH letterhead to try to give more creedence to their demands, the phone numbers for payment are likely to be ZZPS, not WH

the waters are muddy deliberately

Giant_Hogweed

I've just googled Wright Hassall, and the phone number on the letter I received is different to the one on their website!


I've drafted this to Nick Abell. Opinions please?




Dear Mr Abell





I recently received a letter purportedly to be from your company Wright Hassall LLP. I will attach you a copy in a future message if you request one. The letter was in response to an ongoing dispute over an alleged driving offence with a company called VCS who then passed the matter to a debt collecting company ZZPS Ltd.


The letter is an amateurish attempt at forging a solicitor’s letter to, I presume, add weight and credence to their claim that I owe them £180 (including a £30 non payment surcharge added by your company, Wright Hassall). The letter has a Wright Hassall heading, address etc, but there isn’t a named solicitor on the letter nor is it signed.


The letter also contains several attempts to intimidate a lay person by mentioning courts, CCJs, even bailiffs. Even I, a lay person know that this letter is almost certainly a faked attempt at intimidation. I wonder if you and your company condone this type of behaviour?


There are several giveaways that this isn’t a genuine letter :-



* Wright Hassall cannot take any action because their client (ZZPS) is a debt collector and not a party to the supposed contract, and Wright Hassall must know that.
* The letter hasn't been signed by anyone
* The return address to sender address on the rear of the envelope does not match any Wright Hassall address.


*The contact number for payment of this ‘invoice’ does not match any contact number on Wright Hassalls website
* The letter is attempting to intimidate the lay person by mentioning CCJ's and Bailiffs, despite Wright Hassall being unable to take any action and a CCJ can only be applied for in extreme circumstances.

The quality of the letter makes me suspect it wasn't written by a solicitor, and in fact I believe it was written by ZZPS, either with or without Wright Hassall permission to use their heading and title, which makes the additional fee suspect.


I look forward to your reply on this matter

System

DRP and Zenith and PCS are one and the same afaik

Yes

ZZPS is the old Roxburghe reincarnated by one of the old directors afaik

Yes

ZZPS may wel use the WH letterhead to try to give more creedence to their demands, the phone numbers for payment are likely to be ZZPS, not WH

Yes

The ZZPS director you refer to is one Gary Osner. Roxburghe when he was in charge, were stripped of their OFT licence for being "not fit" mainly for misleading people about their legal position.

As well as running ZZPS, Gary is also Chair of the British Parking Association's Standards Committee.

Umkomaas

I wholeheartedly agree. None have previously been fully pursued. I believe this is the quickest way to attempt shut them up. Otherwise you're likely to have to suffer endless debt collector rubbish for months. Even if they push on longer, you have at least made your position absolutely clear!

Herzlos

Mick_Rog wrote: »

The driver lives in the Phillipines, he is surely out of jurisdiction?

My bad, I thought that was the case but thought you'd already named them and couldn't find the reference.

And I'm not sure what you mean by PoFA2012 protection. What might I lose? I've not gone into it all as deep as maybe I should, just took advice from you more learned people.

With POFA2012 the registered keeper can only be held liable if a specific set of requirements are met, which inevitably aren't. That said, naming the driver also means they can't pursue you under POFA2012, therefore have another reason they can't claim money from you.

So in your case, there's no reason not to name the driver (again).

Giant_Hogweed

Thanks again Herzlos, Umkomaas, RedX (sorry if I missed anyone) I'd be lost doing this on my own. I'll post the driver details this week to ZZPS, I'll write to WH using the short letter I drafted yesterday (post 99 on this thread), unless anyone has anything I could add.


I've already e mailed the SRA and the e mail to Nick Abell is also on its way


Do any of you more learned people think I should mention to ZZPS that I spotted their fake threatening solicitors letter and its been reported to the SRA? I've gone into detail about it with the SRA and on the Nick Abell letter, might it stop them in their tracks if they think I'm onto their scam?
Although I won't give up, I'm getting a bit fed up of using my weekends up writing to these conmen, not only is it costing me time, but postage as well. I've also lost sleep over this (I know I shouldn't but that's just me, I let things whirl around in my head).


Many thanks to all who've given me advice, and watch this space!