NTC and ZZPS

corser

Hi all,

I am sure this is a repetitive topic, however I need some help so will ask.

30-10-2014 I parking in an area outside my partners apartment in the centre of Norwich. We have paid for visitors parking permits which are always placed in the window of the cars. I popped up to the flat to take some pictures as we were looking to rent the place, no more than 10 minutes. On my return to the car I found I had a ticket from Norwich Traffic Control stuck to the window telling me I was not displaying a permit and had therefore gained a fine.
I appealed this fine as required telling them there was a ticket in the car and this could be seen through the window. To no surprise the appeal failed, however, I heard no more.

Fast forward to 22nd June 2015 I receive a demand for £160.00 from ZZPS Limited. Then another, 7th July 2015. I did not respond to these.

Now 17th August 2015 I have received a letter from Wright Hassall solicitors telling me payment is long overdue and that I must now pay £190.00 or they will issue County Court proceedings against me requesting a CCJ. My question is, where do I stand and what is my next move?

I still have my filled in visitors parking voucher and a photo of the car with the ticket in it. They also sent a picture through but you can hardly make out it is a car at all.

This may be abit long winded but any help is gratefully accepted.

Guys_Dad

Lots of advice on this page already for ZZPS and Wright Hassall.

You can search for either using the forum search and you will find lots of ready advice while waiting for any other comments on your thread.

hoohoo

WH do now seem to be issuing claims, so I would put the ball back in their court by emailing them to state the debt is denied and should be referred back to the principal. The debt is denied because a permit was displayed at all times.

They do seem to be quite good at dropping hot potatoes like this

enfield_freddy

hoohoo wrote: »

WH do now seem to be issuing claims, so I would put the ball back in their court by emailing them to state the debt is denied and should be referred back to the principal. The debt is denied because a permit was displayed at all times.

They do seem to be quite good at dropping hot potatoes like this

how are WH issuing claims ? in there own name or that of the PPC?

ampersand

Welcome to this up-to-date forum, corser.

As well as learning to effectively search the parking threads and read the newbies stickies more than once, you'll enjoy and be reassured by Parking Prankster on this shabby lot.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/roxburghe-in-administration.html
#
Your only mistake::)
'and had therefore gained a[STRIKE]fine[/STRIKE]a fake / unenforceable invoice.'

System

how are WH issuing claims ?

Less than 5

in there own name or that of the PPC?

In the name of the original PPC


....but watch this space.

enfield_freddy

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Less than 5



In the name of the original PPC


....but watch this space.

the scum of the earth are sinking further ,


I wondered if they were doing a MIL/deal type thing

The_Slithy_Tove

enfield_freddy wrote: »

I wondered if they were doing a MIL/deal type thing

You mean:

MIL acquiring an alleged debt from a non-trading company, or an entity which didn't have claim to the alleged debt in the first place?

Or

DEL having 85% of the debt assigned to it, then claiming the whole lot on an alleged parking event in 1900?

Considering that WH are as dodgy and unethical as the above two, nothing* will surprise me.

*Actually, a valid, clear, well constructed claim with no obfuscation or deliberate muddying of the waters over what the claim is for and the exact legal entity it is on behalf of, would surprise me.

enfield_freddy

true ,,, (to short) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,