Elite Management, PCN, ZZPS, Wright Hassall harassment

pappa_golf

as cribbed from a posting in 2015 by marktheshark


When acting as debt collectors a solicitor must act under Credit services association licence they can only act under SRA regulations if they are acting in a legal manner.
If they ask you to pay the debt to them, they are debt collectors.
If they ask you to pay the client and state they are acting on behalf of that client conducting legal representation they are solicitors.


and the phone number is lamington spa

Coupon-mad

King_Mustard wrote: »

But aren't some others above suggesting I ignore them?

Yes they WERE, whilst it was mere debt collector threatograms, up until the point you have now reached.

You are best advised never to ignore a 'Letter before claim' or 'Letter of claim' (same thing, both precursors to possible court papers) even a pile of drivel like that one.

Here's the other recent thread with the same letter but to be fair there are always loads of these letters around and they rarely go anywhere. You just have to cover yourself now by responding:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445674

It is highly unlikely to proceed to a small claim (which is defendable). But just in case, it now looks reasonable and is best for you to follow the practice direction, explained in simple terms here (cross off the advert):

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/claim-preparations/responding-to-a-claim.htm

BMPA advice here is useful as the BMPA exists specifically to protect motorists from this scam:

http://www.bmpa.eu/static_lba_header.html

HTH - obviously do NOT ring Wright Hassall...respond in writing.

King_Mustard

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Similar advice as on the other thread about a WH LBC today/yesterday, easy enough to find. It was a CP Plus thread about this same letter.

Your response needs to be robust, written as the keeper but slightly different from the other thread because the PCN 'admin centre' Notice to Keeper is trying to hold a keeper liable (unlike CP Plus ones). It still fails to state the warning about keeper liability properly though - it misstates the 28 day period which is fundamental and that wording (required under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4) is prescribed by statute & cannot be paraphrased.

So devide your own version of a response to WH by changing the CP Plus one already suggested yesterday, or write your own or find one on pepipoo forum written by Gan. There are loads of forum threads about this letter & how to reply.

If I'm honest, I'm totally lost.

I found the robust letter you posted yesterday but as it's very complicated, I'm unsure of what to change.

For reference, this is your letter I am referring to:

(I have bolded the parts I believe I need to change, though I'm not sure what to)



I am writing in response to your Letter of Claim dated April 6, 2016.

Your letter fails to disclose any cause of action and provides no explanation other than it concerns a piece of conduct by an unidentified driver months ago. I also see that it concerns CP Plus, who do not use the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.

It is a fact that, for at least two years, CP Plus have dispensed from using any attempt at a POFA-compliant Notice to Keeper letter. They are a parking operator which chooses only to hold a driver liable. They cannot hold me liable as the registered keeper, therefore I cannot agree to make any payment to Wright Hassall or your client. I am the registered keeper of that vehicle but am in no position (nor am I required) to assist your client with identifying the driver with whom they allege they formed a contract.

Nor can they reasonably assume a keeper was the driver on private land. To save Wright Hassall from wasting time on a misleading reply in this regard, I will state now that it is clear that the case of Elliott v Loake [1983] Crim LR 36 is a criminal law matter which is not comparable to this situation, was not about parking or contract law and absolutely does not apply. It also turned on clear and substantial evidence - not any assumption - about who was driving.

Under the circumstances it will also be entirely unreasonable and a failure to follow the Practice Direction for Pre-action Conduct and Protocols as well as a flagrant disregard for the POFA 2012, should you proceed with your threatened legal action. If so, I will have no hesitation in reporting Wright Hassall to the SRA.

I will rely upon the POFA in any defence and I will seek my costs from this moment on, at the litigant in person rate of £19 per hour.

If your client persists in pursuing myself as registered keeper I will of course require a copy of the original Notice to Keeper (PCN) upon which they seek to rely. I am certain that, after scrutinising it for two minutes you will agree that it is indisputably not POFA compliant, as I found when deciding it was not worthy of a response, in 2015.

As your firm is under public scrutiny regarding private parking ticket matters since you were given the 'stayed' cases POPLA contract, I expect Wright Hassall Solicitors to be fully conversant with Schedule 4 and the concept of what the DVLA term a 'non-POFA' document, incapable of keeper liability. Please confirm the charge is hereby cancelled as any claim from CP Plus has no prospects of success against a registered keeper in a case where the driver has never been established.

adambrownbear

im in the same situation. very new to all this but I'm fighting back against these scum! is there any template letters where i can learn from? anybody know? I'm not sure where to start or how to word these letters.

Coupon-mad

adambrownbear wrote: »

im in the same situation. very new to all this but I'm fighting back against these scum! is there any template letters where i can learn from? anybody know? I'm not sure where to start or how to word these letters.

I showed you this thread and asked you to start your own thread, please.

adambrownbear

King_Mustard wrote: »

If I'm honest, I'm totally lost.

I found the robust letter you posted yesterday but as it's very complicated, I'm unsure of what to change.

For reference, this is your letter I am referring to:

(I have bolded the parts I believe I need to change, though I'm not sure what to)




I am writing in response to your Letter of Claim dated April 6, 2016.

Your letter fails to disclose any cause of action and provides no explanation other than it concerns a piece of conduct by an unidentified driver months ago. I also see that it concerns CP Plus, who do not use the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.

It is a fact that, for at least two years, CP Plus have dispensed from using any attempt at a POFA-compliant Notice to Keeper letter. They are a parking operator which chooses only to hold a driver liable. They cannot hold me liable as the registered keeper, therefore I cannot agree to make any payment to Wright Hassall or your client. I am the registered keeper of that vehicle but am in no position (nor am I required) to assist your client with identifying the driver with whom they allege they formed a contract.

Nor can they reasonably assume a keeper was the driver on private land. To save Wright Hassall from wasting time on a misleading reply in this regard, I will state now that it is clear that the case of Elliott v Loake [1983] Crim LR 36 is a criminal law matter which is not comparable to this situation, was not about parking or contract law and absolutely does not apply. It also turned on clear and substantial evidence - not any assumption - about who was driving.

Under the circumstances it will also be entirely unreasonable and a failure to follow the Practice Direction for Pre-action Conduct and Protocols as well as a flagrant disregard for the POFA 2012, should you proceed with your threatened legal action. If so, I will have no hesitation in reporting Wright Hassall to the SRA.

I will rely upon the POFA in any defence and I will seek my costs from this moment on, at the litigant in person rate of £19 per hour.

If your client persists in pursuing myself as registered keeper I will of course require a copy of the original Notice to Keeper (PCN) upon which they seek to rely. I am certain that, after scrutinising it for two minutes you will agree that it is indisputably not POFA compliant, as I found when deciding it was not worthy of a response, in 2015.

As your firm is under public scrutiny regarding private parking ticket matters since you were given the 'stayed' cases POPLA contract, I expect Wright Hassall Solicitors to be fully conversant with Schedule 4 and the concept of what the DVLA term a 'non-POFA' document, incapable of keeper liability. Please confirm the charge is hereby cancelled as any claim from CP Plus has no prospects of success against a registered keeper in a case where the driver has never been established.

what should go in Cp Plus. I'm a bit confused too??? I'm very new to this but have the same letter as you had.

adambrownbear

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I showed you this thread and asked you to start your own thread, please.

sorry I'm new to the forum. how do i start a new thread? i bet you get very annoyed with newbies but il get there soon ha

Coupon-mad

Using the ''new thread'' button back on page one (not here). Click 'User Help' in the titles or search 'how to start a new thread'.

Did you not read the email when you registered? I am sure they provide a video or some FAQs telling you how the forum works.

King_Mustard

I'm hoping coupon-mad will reply to my post above :embarasse

Coupon-mad

CP Plus was an easy one to write because they make no attempt at the statutory wording.

Yours needs you to sit down and compare your Notice to Keeper with Schedule 4 (paragraph 8 or 9) and spot the omissions.

Or, just write a shorter/vaguer version of the above without any detail as to why the documents served by the PPC are incapable of keeper liability. Just say they are if you have no time to do the simple 'spot the difference' game against Schedule 4 (it is actually easy enough).