Wright Hassall

Redx

its not, as it has the words "may" in it and that it would be referred back to the client with a recommendation that they instruct them further about court

its all smoke and mirrors , with threats of what "could" happen

I would have thought that you would have understood these differences by now

dazster

Redx wrote: »

even if you were to out yourself as driver, its her responsibility under POFA2012 to do it if she wishes to hide behind the act

That is not true. PoFA 2012 does not state that the keeper must identify the driver to the creditor in order to discharge liability, it is worded completely the opposite way: the keeper is liable if and only if the company doesn't know who the driver was. As to how the company might learn the identity of the driver, the act is silent: a little birdy might've told them for all the Act cares. In other words, the OP's missus doesn't have to do anything, if the OP dobs himself in then she's off the hook.

Redx wrote: »

she needs to inform INDIGO who the driver was and to mention that she has discharged her duty under POFA2012

Nay nay and thrice nay! She doesn't have a duty under PoFA 2012! Supposing the driver didn't want to dob himself in then she might think it prudent to shop him in order to take the heat off her, but she doesn't have a duty to do so and in anyway in this instance he seems quite willing to shop himself - and once he does, keeper liability evaporates.

To the OP: that is not a letter before action. Note that it says "We have been instructed by ZZPS". Well they might have been instructed by Elvis Presley, it would be just as meaningful: ZZPS is merely a debt collector, they have no standing in the matter whatsoever, they are merely an interfering third party trying to cream a commission out of the situation. What you have there is merely another debt collection letter sent by ZZPS, to whom Wright Hassall have pimped out their letterhead (and their now-shattered reputation as reputable solicitors).

beamerguy

devonlad wrote: »

hello, if anyone gets to glance this photo could you just please give me the heads up. I don't think it is a letter before court. OH just wants to feel more reassured that it isn't. thanks guys


https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=BAFB45381151F1F4!10646&authkey=!AJbDev Y2-YQVDgo&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg

Assume this is a Wright Hassall letter.

Seems to me they are acting as judge and jury before it gets to court and a real judge gets involved.
Disgusting, making threats in the way they do ??

This type of scare tactics letter works for some but who knows, if it got that far you could win so what are Wright Hassall babbling on about.

It beggars belief that the BPA has taken on Wright Hassall for POPLA appeals .... Wright Hassall are totally un-professional, would not trust them for any type of law

devonlad

Thankyou beamerguy. I read the letter as threats. That they will seek a ccj. Its not signed either. So do you think that this is not a letter before court. Also I should hold onto this letter as future evidence. I understand that it is indigo that must notify me not zzps

beamerguy

devonlad wrote: »

Thankyou beamerguy. I read the letter as threats. That they will seek a ccj. Its not signed either. So do you think that this is not a letter before court. Also I should hold onto this letter as future evidence. I understand that it is indigo that must notify me not zzps

YES .... as said above

"What you have there is merely another debt collection letter sent by ZZPS, to whom Wright Hassall have pimped out their letterhead (and their now-shattered reputation as reputable solicitors)."

Really makes you wonder what planet Wright Hassall come from, it's eye popping stuff that the BPA missed ..... no surprise then ?

Redx

whether or not what I said (DUTY) was in legal terms correct (I am not legally trained so wont always know the correct word to use so clearly used the wrong word but wasnt told the correct word either), the fact of the matter is that my reply was due to the OP constantly mentioning that the RK keeps (bending his ear" about it so he keeps bending ours

so my point to the OP is that if the RK wants it to stop then the RK could name the keeper (or driver) at the time, same as we tell people who hire cars that the hire co can name the hirer or keeper (or driver if known)

then the OP can deal with it because it is "expected" that the RK wont be chased any more so wont be bending the ear of the OP

how you word this in legal terms may well be different to what I have written, but my POINT was valid , if the RK does not want the continued "right hassle" then the RK can write legal words such that this OP takes the heat

the RK isnt reading or writing in this thread, the OP is doing it but also complaining that the RK doesnt want this continued set of threats, its easy for the OP to ignore it as the OP isnt getting the letters, they are being passed on by the RK who is sick of the "WRIGHT HASSELL" !!

I have read numerous times on this forum that the KEEPER (or driver) can be named right up to when court proceeedings start, so that was the point of my replies, if I didnt word it in the way a lawyer would word it , well tough , as the reply was well intentioned and I believe the OP understood the gist of my replies

its written by CM in this thread although her wording may be better than mine, but its the same general advice , to pass the buck to the driver (whereas a hire company pass the buck to the hirer)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5368840

in any case, 2 people or more have told this OP that that current threat letter is not an LBC , yes they should keep all correspondence, that goes without saying

this thread written by a retired solicitor also tells the OP who can and cannot issue court papers etc , it was written 3 years ago and yet most of it is still valid, although some legal procedures changed last year

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4754020

THE OP SHOULD ALREADY KNOW THAT THEY CANNOT PRESS FOR A CCJ UNTIL THE RK OR KEEPER OR DRIVER HAS LOST IN COURT AND FAILED TO PAY THE JUDGMENT

they could threaten ARMAGEDDON if they want, doesnt make it true

we always point people at this thread about debt collector letters

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

the same stuff is being rehashed every week or month and I believe that despite being asked not to post about the threatograms this OP will keep on posting every time a letter comes to this RK, because the OP is being hassled about it and the RK wants no part of it

he even talks about "ME" when he really means the RK, no wonder its confusing !!!

he is not receiving the letters, its not about him , its about the RK who isnt present and does not want the hassle, the RK just wants the OP to pay the outstanding debt !

dazster

No, sorry, it's not merely about legalese, your advice was actually wrong. The OP wants to deal with this, his missus wants him to deal with it, and you told him that he can't: you said that she has to name him as driver i.e. he has to drag her into it again against her wishes.

That is plain wrong. He can deal with it himself simply by naming himself to them as the driver.

Redx

maybe that part is wrong and yes , maybe he can name himself as you say, but my advice was that as his missus is so worked up about this that she has the power to name the OP and in so doing in theory she can make the letters to herself with her name on them "go away" and stop being chased for the alleged debt that is currently in her name

the OP seems perfectly willing to let this go on ad infinitum, then keeps posting back on here every time a new letter comes in the post, to his missus , not to him

then he states that INDIGO must take him to court , but they actually dont know its him , yet (he is using the word ME when it does not apply) , its his missus that could receive an MCOL and at that point we always say its too late to name the driver

whatever the wording, either the RK should inform INDIGO of some facts and keep a copy in case of further hassle, or the OP should do something, but I havent seen any indication that the OP wishes to pay this, despite his ear being bent about doing so , or they do nothing and front it out - together

in this thread CM was asking the RK those questions about naming a relative

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5368840

Originally Posted by LiamD89
I have sent an email to the "solicitors" who wrote to me (Premier Solicitors) to name the person driving as it wasn't actually me at the time.

Redx

I have never stopped him from naming himself as driver, he stated that his wife would not let him do this , I have never stated that "he can`t"

devonlad wrote: »

she wont let me contact them though. I did think about contacting the indigo etc to state I was the driver

oh I also forgot to add that she wasn't the driver I was. so I have said that I can contact them to say I was the driver.

so having read it back I was offering the alternative that she could name him as driver , absolving herself out of this mess , regardless of what he does

she wanted him to pay, he does not seem to want to pay

Lol she just messaged me back saying just pay it. I asked why etc its cos she worried that the wh will pass it to litigations team. There they will do the court. Then she worried about fees costs etc.

he seems happy to let the letters to his wife continue (as shown by the one his OH received this week) and is asking the exact same questions he asked on page 1 two weeks ago

he has been given several alternatives that he or the RK can try, none of which have been acted upon

he thinks that INDIGO are the only people who can take him to court, yet its actually the RK that is currently under that threat (so not the OP who can be taken to court at the moment) , plus a solicitor acting on behalf of INDIGO could also take the RK to court (or him if he was subsequently named as driver)

Redx wrote: »

if she names you as driver she wouldnt have those problems once they aim their guns at you

I was also going off the wording of the letter by the RK to the PPC in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4955746

"obligation" was mentioned , maybe that was the correct word?

I will change the word "duty" to "obligation" anyway

The_Deep

I read the letter as threats. That they will seek a ccj. Its not signed either

If you feel threatened by a letter from a solicitor, complain to the SRA. It is all grist to the mill, and after a number of such complaints the SPA may sanction the firm.

Nothing is more important to solicitors than their reputation and if WH think that their involvement with UKPC is damaging them they may wash their now grubby hands.