Parking LBCCC - reply to Acknowledgment letter received

codan84

Hello everyone!
First of all, thank you so much for all your help on this forum! Without this I would be lost!
So my situation is as follows.
1. I was driving sister's car, parked in Peel Centre Stockport, didn't realize I had to pay £1.30, went to a restaurant and spent a considerable amount of money, got a PCN.
2. My sister have appealed, they rejected the appeal (no popla, just ias).
3. My sister got scared and provided them with my name as the driver.
4. I appealed, got rejected. Waited through debt collectors etc as advised.
5. Got LBCCC from Wright Hassall representing Excel Parking (or ZZPS, I am getting lost right now).
6. Replied to them as described in the topic about LBCCC (can't post links here...).
7. Got a template response.
8. Replied again pointing out in details where they did not comply with Practice Direction Annex A, and told them I would complain to SRA if they did not comply (also asked for POPLA as ADR).
9. They replied, in short, that POPLA doesn't apply as the matter progressed to litigation and Excel incurred additional charges. They also said they have to comply mainly with Annex B, and "in proceedings we comply with the spirit of Annex A". They did not address any points where I said they did not comply with Annex A!

Now I am here. I need to write a letter to SRA with complaint, and back to Wright Hassall. Whilst I know more or less what to send back to WH, I would need help with compiling a complaint to SRA. Could anyone help me with this please? Or should I wait for another 1 or 2 responses from them before complaining?

Also, few things to note about Wright Hassall:
1. They don't title they LBCCC in any way described within LBCCC thread. They use heading "Formal Letter of Claim". I almost dropped the bomb on this! It would be worth adding to the thread mentioned above.
2. They advise against using forums like this one, saying that "should you choose to rely on this advice or use template letters sourced from the internet we will not respond further and you can consider this letter our final response on the matter. Further should you choose to rely on a template defence at court we will seek an immediate strike out". So yeah - I would advice everyone in my situation to write letters themselves rather than copy-paste. And read your PA! Don't get scared with such threats tho.

Again, thanks for all your help. You are all awesome

pappa_golf

there is/was a post on Pepipoo with the question's to ask WH , however the website is down at the moment


basically WH are claiming you owe monies to zzps , and that they are working for zzps


got it , you can view the lo-res version here http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t103622.html


read and study "gans" posting (Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 11:07) do not add or amend any wording , just alter the blank words to incorporate your details (change VCS to your PPC)


and sit back

codan84

Thanks pappa. I will give it a read, I didn't see this thread before. However, I am slightly reluctant to use copy-paste letters, as per my comment about Wright Hassall in my original post. they threatened me against template letters. Or do you think these are empty threats, and they can't do anything even if I indeed copy-paste? Thanks for your help

pappa_golf

*ollocks , the letter you got off WH was a template letter , YOU just ask the questions gan has asked , they cannot answer without either dropping the charge or getting kicked out by the SRA.


those people are not your friends , hell the letter was probably typed by ZZPS on WH paper .


IF WH want to rent their name , then they need to take mare care who they rent it to!




send Gans letter!!!!


if they don,t reply then that is good , if excel want to try it in court they would have done if they were confident , instead they pay10% in a hope for a payment

codan84

Even if I was to send this letter, I will have to amend it because I am already a named driver in this case. But other than that I will give it a try. thanks!

pappa_golf

after 14 days , send your letter to the SRA along with any feeble reply they send , they are well known to the SRA , and more nails in their coffin would do nothing to help them

Coupon-mad

I would tend to ignore Wright Hassall if it's that standard letter with the boxes on it with figures in (the standard debt collector letter from WH).

However as this is Excel they *might* still proceed to a small claim. Have a look by searching for 'Wright hassall letter' on Google images which shows you lots of examples leading to threads about the letters. Is this letter from WH actually a LBCCC and does it ask for payment to DRPlus or what exactly?

codan84

Hi coupon-mad. It looks like a LBCCC, they title it "Formal letter of claim" however. I say it looks like LBCCC because it points me to Pre Action Protocols and mentions County Court proceedings if I don't pay within 14 days (I can post it here if that helps). The letter, however does not comply with Pre Action Protocols Annex A (as described in LBCCC thread - I read it end to end).
Since it doesn't comply, I have acknowledged their letter, pointing out that I need all the information mentioned in Annex A. Obviously got a template reply. I replied again, got template again.
Now I want to go to SRA, would probably need a little help with this letter tho.
I did google for Wright Hassall and indeed a lot pops out. One interesting one is:

Dear Mr Jarman

Ref : Complaint

I have receive the enclosed letter from your organisation regarding an alleged debt to your client, ZZPS Ltd

Your client is well-known on internet consumer forums for using your organisation to send demands for payment for disputed parking charges that it does not own, or on behalf of a client that has no contract at the location.

There are only two possible explanations for the letter that I have received.

1 Your client has misled Wright Hassall regarding the existence of the debt and you are an innocent party in this matter

2 Wright Hassall is fully aware that your client has no legal right to the payment and you have, in fact, no intention to "apply for a CCJ" as you have unusually described the Small Claims procedure.

There is a third unpalatable option that the letter was not sent with the authority of your company

Please inform me within ten days of the result of your investigation and the action you are taking in accordance with the Solicitors Code of Conduct.

I will delay my complaints to the Financial Conduct- and Solicitors Regulatory authorities for ten days while I await your decision.

Yours Faithfully

I am, however unsure if this is the right time to send such a thing, or is it too late and I should just send them "Formal response" as in the pre-action protocol, and complain to SRA...
For now I compiled yet another letter to them, politely asking to comply with Annex A, and including paragraphs from the post papa golf suggested above, mainly pointing out that their client (ZZPS) has no interest in the original parking contract etc... I thought I will give them one more chance, although I know I will get a template again! More evidence for SRA and court (should they choose to go)

hoohoo

You are referring to the OLD pre-practice directions, which changed April 2015. If you want to complain you need to complain against the current directions.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/preview/pre-action-protocol-amendments-6-april.pdf

So Annex A does not exist any more. The fact that as solicitors THEY though it did just shows how incompetent they are.

Coupon-mad

It looks like a LBCCC, they title it "Formal letter of claim" however. I say it looks like LBCCC because it points me to Pre Action Protocols and mentions County Court proceedings if I don't pay within 14 days

Yes that is more serious and does need a robust response. Certainly point out if their letter has misled you about the current practice direction.

codan84

Wow, I wasn't aware of that (Annex A doesn't exist any more). This slightly complicate things as Annex A set out nicely all the details the claimant should provide. Also, the newbies and LBCCC threads should be updated to warn people about the changes. I was following these threads, and I have a feeling I did this for nothing right now...