Formal Letter Of Claim - Wright Hassall solictor

Richeyrich86

Thanks everyone for the advise as am new i cant post a link i have PM you pappa golf with the link to the image

Richeyrich86

imgur.com/fwpDw1K here is a scan of the letter thanks

pappa_golf

pappa_golf

OK , you need to think back


how long are you allowed to remain on that site for?


how long WAS the driver on the site?

Coupon-mad

You didn't need to show us that letter and no need for any detail about who was driving. Neither appeal nor ignore; as already said yesterday, you reply robustly as registered keeper.

We know what a WH 'LBC' looks like, they are common and I gave you a suggested response to send already. A keeper cannot be liable to CP Plus so don't blow it by replying or posting anything here about who parked.

Richeyrich86

it was 30min free driver must have been over maybe 10/15min

pappa_golf

don,t forget to remind them of the "grace periods" clearly defined by the BPA code of practice

dazster

Look folks, this letter is a slightly new wrinkle by ZZPS which has also appeared on PePiPoo lately. The new features are:

It is headed "Formal Letter Before Claim" (at least one person on PePiPoo has received a follow-up letter from [STRIKE]ZZPS[/STRIKE] Wright Hassall in which they rather foolishly confirm that any letter headed "Formal Letter Before Claim" is indeed intended to be a LBC within the meaning of the CPR).

It completely fails to say who they are acting for. The letter no longer states that their client is ZZPS, and the only mention of CP Plus is to describe them as "Car Park Operator". So who has instructed WH? Who are they acting for? Who claims you owe them money and is proposing to sue you? We have no idea!

In my opinion this is not a Letter Before Claim and it's not from Wright Hassall. It's just another attempt by ZZPS at ramping up the intimidation level (and at the same time flying even closer to the wind when it comes to dropping Wright Hassall into deep and well-deserved sh|t).

Howsoever, since it says it's a Letter Before Claim, and it purports to be from Wright Hassall, it warrants a response. IMO C-M's wordy effort is inappropriate. Brief and straight for the goolies is called for.

Dear WH,

You ref: ???????

Thank you for your letter dated ??/??/????.

Your letter falls woefully short of the requirements in the CPR for a Letter Before Claim. Please send me a compliant Letter Before Claim within 7 days, otherwise I shall consider the matter closed. Any response other than a compliant Letter Before Claim will result in a referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority

It is not for me to advise you on how to write a compliant Letter Before Claim, but identifying your client (the party who is instructing you) would be a good start.

This letter is a formal complaint which you should pass to your Compliance Officer.

Yours etc.

The SRA has previously dismissed complaints about misleading and intimidating letters from [STRIKE]ZZPS[/STRIKE] Wright Hassall by stating that they were not intended to be a LBC, but the wording of this letter leaves no doubt: it is intended to be a LBC, even if it fails miserably in that intention.

Herzlos

I'd send in a complaint to the SRA at the same time, rather than threatening to do it if they don't comply within 7 days. Whether you say that in the letter is up to you.

dazster

A poster on PePiPoo has elicited a template response after challenging the above letter, which reverts to admitting that they are instructed by ZZPS.