Indigo Hospital Site.

kevdev666

I recently received an LBC from a solicitors (wright&hassell) for a fine in february. I missed the chance to refer them to the driver (which was not myself). This was because I have been living out temporarily. Anyway, I replied to their letter to state that I was not the driver and asked to reset the clock, but they have a picture of the ticket on the car which I had no knowledge of.

The response they gave me was as follows:
Our Reference:
Client Reference:
Car Parking Operator: INDIGO PARK SERVICES UK LIMITED
Instructed by: ZZPS Limited
Balance outstanding: £ 166.00

With reference to your recent email, the contents of which have been duly noted.

We enclose copy photographs whereby a Parking Charge Notice was affixed to your vehicle. The car parking operator also sent you a Notice to Keeper.

You inform that you sent driver details to our client; however, the confirmation of receipt from our client is dated x June 2016, which would be out of the timescale for providing driver details.

Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states for parking events in England & Wales that the operator must inform the registered keeper that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that, as the operator does not know the driver’s name or current postal address of the registered keeper and if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass the notice to them.

The Act also warns that if, after 29 days, the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to the operator complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act.

Further, if you have previously confirmed the details of the driver and they have not made payment or denied responsibility, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states liability remains with the registered keeper.

Therefore, as you were out of the timeframe to provide driver details, liability lies with you and payment in full of the above balance is required.

Please see below our payment methods and contact details for your convenience:-

Online:
Please quote your reference if paying online or on the reverse by cheque or postal order

Tel, address etc

We look forward to receiving payment from you in regards to this matter.



I will post the initial letters too, but I feel stuck at the moment. Do I have a leg to stand on?

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

It looks like this is a debt collector letter not an LBC.

Right @sshole are acting for (Instructed by ...) ZZPS, who are DRP in disguise, who are debt collectors. Only the landowner or Indigo can take you to court.

Wait for the more experienced to comment, but I don't think this is a real LBC. In any case, I believe you can name the driver up to the point that court proceedings start, which hasn't happened yet, so I think someone is telling porkie-pies.

Coupon-mad

It's just a debt collector letter, given away by the sheer stupidity of it and the fact payment is to ZZPS debt collectors.

I would have some fun with it and reply:



Dear Sirs,

YOUR REF: XXXXXXXXX - RE: INDIGO PCN NUMBER XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I fear that someone at an unregulated debt collector firm may have 'acquired' a quantity of 'Wright Hassall' headed notepaper. It is very clear that the letter dated xx/6/16 cannot have emanated from the desk of a legally qualified person at any firm of solicitors.

No solicitor would mislead consumers about the law in the sloppy manner displayed in this latest letter; if they do, they would run the risk of being reported to the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority (SRA).

Yet the letter says this which is completely untrue (please show me the part I have missed in Schedule 4):

''Further, if you have previously confirmed the details of the driver and they have not made payment or denied responsibility, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states liability remains with the registered keeper.''

And no legitimate solicitor firm would be stupid enough to quote paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 regarding a windscreen ticket! You say ''We enclose copy photographs whereby a Parking Charge Notice was affixed to your vehicle''. Far be it from me to assist your training, but neither paragraph 9(2)(b) nor 9(2)(f) can possibly apply.

I suspect the office cleaner has sent this letter for a joke or ZZPS call centre's finest have slipped up because they just want my money, never mind whether the letter is factually correct or not. Either way, I wasn't fooled and Indigo do not use compliant Notice to Keeper letters anyway (but I wouldn't expect ZZPS staff to be able to spot such finer detail).

I have decided to report Wright Hassall to the SRA anyway, due to this misinformation because it is being sent out under the auspices of a firm of solicitors rejoicing in the infamy of ostensibly 'acting as if it were POPLA' as regards thousands of stayed POPLA appeal cases. A conflict of interests of the highest order and the misinformation in this letter is completely unacceptable for such a firm, even if merely lending its letter-heading to a call centre debt collection office. Wright Hassall are in a unique position and - above any other solicitor firm 'working' in this area of debateable 'debt' - are expected to demonstrate clear understanding of the applicable law.

They have failed and they have misled me about liability. Therefore a SRA complaint will now be lodged with a copy of the offending letter.

Cease and desist with this unregulated rubbish which has now become unwarranted harassment as defined in the case of Ferguson v British Gas. Liability is denied and any 'debt' is disputed, so return the file to the originating parking firm, Indigo, who should stop wasting my time and proceed within the pre-action protocol, if they believe they have a cause of action against me, as keeper of the vehicle. Alternatively, here's an idea, they can cancel the charge, not least because it breaches Government Policy which precludes the issue of incentivised 'fines' for the profit of private parking firms within NHS car park sites.

yours faithfully,

Umkomaas

Another one of your best CM.

Perhaps it should be copied to the DVLA and the BPA. And ISPA too?

Castle

Umkomaas wrote: »

Another one of your best CM.

Perhaps it should be copied to the DVLA and the BPA. And ISPA too?

And the Hospital since as principal they are liable for the acts of Indigo and their agents.

kevdev666

amazing, I feel a sense of relief.
I got this via email from "Debt support" - support@wrighthassal.co.uk - I don't suppose that changes your opinion.

Coupon-mad

No because it is not a pre-court letter, just a debt collector letter and is so misleading you need to report WH, like the letter says you will. Get assertive and fight back.

kevdev666

With reference to your recent email, the contents of which have been duly noted.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 gives us the right for the parking operators to recover unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper provided that we comply with a number of provisions which are contained within the sections that follow.
We recognise that previously the Protection of Freedoms Act has been misquoted to you, as the PCN you received was affixed to your vehicle Paragraph 8 applies, the principle remains the same details of a driver were either not provided within the timescales detailed on both the PCN affixed to your vehicle or the notice to keeper sent in the post or the driver has denied all responsibility.


The email i sent previous to this is as follows and similar to what you've written above:

In reference to the email you sent below.

It is worrying that I am receiving letters which are not legally accurate, especially after explicitly asking for you to send another letter which was compliant with protocol. No solicitor would mislead consumers about the law in the sloppy manner displayed in this latest letter; if they do, they would run the risk of being reported to the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority (SRA). I can only deduce that I am in fact in contact with ZZPS and not a solicitors firm.

I have no choice but to report Wright Hassall to the SRA due to this misinformation, because it is being sent out under the auspices of a firm of solicitors rejoicing in the infamy of ostensibly 'acting as if it were POPLA' as regards thousands of stayed POPLA appeal cases.

To be specific about only few of my concerns, the paragraph mentioned below is completely false (please show me the part I have missed in Schedule 4):

''Further, if you have previously confirmed the details of the driver and they have not made payment or denied responsibility, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states liability remains with the registered keeper.''

In addition no legitimate solicitor firm would quote paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 regarding a windscreen ticket! You say ''We enclose copy photographs whereby a Parking Charge Notice was affixed to your vehicle''. Neither paragraph 9(2)(b) nor 9(2)(f) can possibly apply here.

Cease and desist with these unregulated letters/emails which have now become unwarranted harassment as defined in the case of Ferguson v British Gas. Liability is denied and any 'debt' is disputed, so return the file to the originating parking firm, Indigo, who should stop wasting my time and proceed within the pre-action protocol, if they believe they have a cause of action against me, as keeper of the vehicle. Alternatively, here's an idea, they can cancel the charge, not least because it breaches Government Policy which precludes the issue of incentivised 'fines' for the profit of private parking firms within NHS car park sites.

We will place a 30 day hold on this matter to allow you time to provide documentary evidence to substantiate non-payment of the PCN or alternatively make payment in full. Should payment in full or evidence not be received the hold will be removed and the matter may be passed to our Litigation Team to review.

Please see below our payment methods and contact details for your convenience:-

jumbotron117

My mum is a nurse in a hospital with parking run by indigo and has racked up 14 tickets unpaid as all her friends have told her not to worry and ignore everything.
She has had a letter through from wright hassall totalling 9 of the 14 tickets.
with this in mind would you advise setting up a new thread for advising her.
She's at work at the moment and stressing out hence i've agreed to do this for her.
She was the named driver. Has she a leg to stand on? total fines so far work out as £1300
thanks

jumbotron

beamerguy

jumbotron117 wrote: »

My mum is a nurse in a hospital with parking run by indigo and has racked up 14 tickets unpaid as all her friends have told her not to worry and ignore everything.
She has had a letter through from wright hassall totalling 9 of the 14 tickets.
with this in mind would you advise setting up a new thread for advising her.
She's at work at the moment and stressing out hence i've agreed to do this for her.
She was the named driver. Has she a leg to stand on? total fines so far work out as £1300
thanks

jumbotron

Yes, start a new thread for help

Fruitcake

jumbotron117 wrote: »

My mum is a nurse in a hospital with parking run by indigo and has racked up 14 tickets unpaid as all her friends have told her not to worry and ignore everything.
She has had a letter through from wright hassall totalling 9 of the 14 tickets.
with this in mind would you advise setting up a new thread for advising her.
She's at work at the moment and stressing out hence i've agreed to do this for her.
She was the named driver. Has she a leg to stand on? total fines so far work out as £1300
thanks

jumbotron

As above, after reading the Sticky thread for NEWBIES, please start your own thread so that you get bespoke help. This thread is to help the original poster so nobody gets confused as to what advice is being given and to whom.