Railway Byelaw 14 / Indigo / ZZPS / Wright Hassall

beamerguy

Rigor1 wrote: »

I have been in a lengthy exchange with ZZPS and Wright Hassell over some tickets issued for my car back in December and January this year. I had problems with the mobile payment site when the car park operator changed and as you would expect my appeals have fallen on deaf ears.
I have repeatedly asked them to confirm their authority and they have all refused to do so. Wright Hassel only say that they would not act without authority so to me that's only an implied answer not a real one. So I would write to them and just ask that. Second class is best and takes about 2 weeks to get a reply.....
A question from me....what statute etc. can I quote to say the 6 month limit has passed go away ....

I have offered to settle this for a reasonable amount several times and I found unacceptable that they ignored my letters and only sent out new standard letters exactly as the above and increase the amount owing..

I would invite Wright Hassall to take you to court whereby you will advise the court that your offer to settle has been ignored.
Warn them that you will ask the court for costs.

This Wright Hassall bunch who the BPA put so much trust in are proving to be a somewhat pain in the backside and not a firm of solicitors that anyone should engage with ... that means everything

HO87

WH cannot issue proceedings - although they might do so if instructed by the TOC (which is very doubtful) and in any event if the alleged offence occurred in December 2015 it timed out at the end of June at the latest. I'd suggest that the fact that they continue to pursue things demonstrates that their bluster is just that and, one might argue, is an attempt to exploit the potential ignorance of the recipient. Something that the SRA might need to be told (I doubt they will want to hear about it).

Without wishing to expand this technical hi-jack of terrytibbs thread we should not lose sight of the fact that these persistent threats could conceivably originate from an address in Surrey rather than one in Warwickshire. ZZPS's predecessor business - Roxburghe - had form for such things and that contributed to the OFT closing them down. I know that ZZPS is an entirely new company but, as business owners are wont to keeping telling their employees: "companies are all about their people". Well, ZZPS would pass as a close relative of Roxburghe were that saying applied.

System

I'd complain to the SRA - Wright Hassall are (impersonating) a solicitor in this case, whilst misrepresenting the situation regarding a criminal prosecution that they are in no position to invoke - it has to be the rail operator and not the parking company.

+1 for that. The letter is most likely to have come from ZZPS using WH letterheads. The key point to make to the SRA is that a) you believe it has come from ZZPS and that this company (in the guise of Roxburghe UK) were found to be

* Sending debt collection letters which misrepresented debtors’ legal position;
* Misleading and otherwise inappropriate behaviour by HFO and Roxburghe agents during phone calls to debtors;
* Failing to properly investigate disputed debts; and
* Failing to respond appropriately to the concerns of regulators, including the OFT.

Giant_Hogweed

IamEmanresu wrote: »

+1 for that. The letter is most likely to have come from ZZPS using WH letterheads. The key point to make to the SRA is that a) you believe it has come from ZZPS and that this company (in the guise of Roxburghe UK) were found to be

* Sending debt collection letters which misrepresented debtors’ legal position;
* Misleading and otherwise inappropriate behaviour by HFO and Roxburghe agents during phone calls to debtors;
* Failing to properly investigate disputed debts; and
* Failing to respond appropriately to the concerns of regulators, including the OFT.

I reported WH to the SRA for doing exactly that last year, and also e mailed Nick Abell one of WH's senior directors asking him if he was happy with a poxy debt collecting company using his companies letterheaded paper to intimidate people.
Abell never replied and the SRA sent me a reply that they'd keep my concerns on record.
The SRA seem disinterested by it all TBH.

The_Deep

The SRA seem disinterested


They do seem to strike of a lot of their own, 175 pages of them here

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/search/JudgementSearch.aspx

Rigor1

Sorry, I wasn't trying to hijack this thread, but to help advise how to keep communication up with Indigo/ZZPS and Wright Hassell for over 6 months and then what we both need to quote fo get them to go away.
I have repeatedly asked for their authority to levy penalties under the Railway Act, but they don't answer fully. This alone is enough to take several months of letter writing.
I would not give them an email address or phone number.

Also if you have logged onto paymypcn.net you might notice the incredibly poor security the web site has. I refused to enter my details into a site open for interception and repeatedly asked for hard copies to be sent. This took several months before WH sent me a copy I suspect they downloaded off the insecure website. I highlighted this to ZZPS and formally requested they remove my confidential information. No response from them so I will have to lodge a complaint under the Data Protection Act.

I suspected WH as soon as I spoke to them. Over the phone they threatened a CCJ for debt recovery and sounded at a loss when I said that surely this is a magistrates court prosecution as ZZPS were threatening???

So keep writing and asking them to clearly clarify a few reasonable questions and you will spend several months getting anything but a clear response.

Keep asking reasonable questions and offer to pay any parking charges you may owe.