ES Parking & Wright Hassall

JustAnotherUser

I have received a parking charge notice from this company for parking when we believed we had permission to park; PCN was responded to with a refutal, modelled on information from this forum, and provided written evidence of the permission, though not directly from the landowner, as well as setting out other grounds for dispute. Since then no notice to keeper has been sent. A number of months later, we have now received two Wright Hassall letters (following two ZZPS letters which were ignored), the second of which is headed "Formal Letter of Claim" though is still dressed in "may" and "might". The amount claimed has risen from £100 to £221.

In the first letter, as well as seeking unredacted copies of the agreement and other queries (not supplied), it stated “Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to those, so to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your alleged loss. In any case, the addition of any debt collector 'costs' is not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable.” and the same letter invited their client (if they believed they had a cause for action) to send a Letter before Claim within 21 days.

Outside my property I have a notice (possibly modelled on theirs...) which states
NO UNSOLICITED MAIL AT ALL

UNSOLICITED MAIL IS CONSIDERED TO BE ANY MAIL THAT IS
 LOOSE PAPERS, LEAFLETS, FLYERS, PAMPHLETS ETC. OR
 NOT CORRECTLY ADDRESSED TO A HOUSEHOLD MEMBER OR
 UNREQUESTED OR UNWANTED OR
 MAIL RECEIVED FROM THE SENDER OR THEIR AGENT AFTER BEING NOTIFIED NOT TO SEND
GOVERNMENT, POLICE AND COURT PAPERS ARE EXCLUDED

and continues on to set out the terms and conditions

BREACH OF ANY TERM OR CONDITION WILL RESULT IN THE SENDER/THEIR AGENT BEING LIABLE FOR A CHARGE OF £100

BY SENDING OR DELIVERING TO THIS PROPERTY YOU AGREE TO ABIDE BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
UNSOLICITED MAIL CHARGES ARE TO BE PAID WITHIN 28 DAYS. ADDITIONAL CHARGES APPLY FOR EACH ADDITIONAL PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED THAT REMAINS IN BREACH OR IS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED. TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY 24 HOURS A DAY, ALL YEAR ROUND. WHERE A CHARGE BECOMES DUE AN APPLICATION MAY BE MADE TO THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT FOR RESTITUTION. NON-PAYMENT WILL RESULT IN ADDITIONAL CHARGES WHICH WILL BE ADDED TO THE VALUE OF THE CHARGE AND FOR WHICH THE SENDER AND THEIR AGENTS WILL BE LIABLE ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS

Am I best responding (as I have originally written) referring to my earlier letter and also making a counter claim against them and their client(s), simply responding with a denial of claim or ignoring.

I'm hesitant to put more details in a public forum, though will answer questions or share privately.

Umkomaas

Outside my property I have a notice (possibly modelled on theirs...) which states
NO UNSOLICITED MAIL AT ALL

You are joking, aren't you. You can't have an implied contractual agreement with anyone just by putting a notice on your front door that no one who writes to you will have any opportunity to see, let alone read.

Don't waste your time and make yourself look a beardy-weirdy FOTL.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

If you've received a LBC from a solicitor you need to accord it some seriousness and commence communications with them. Do a forum search on 'Wright Hassall LBC' or 'Wright Hassall LBA' and read how others have dealt with this. Do a similar search on the PePiPoo forum.

If you ignore WH and any subsequent court papers, you're staring down the barrel of a CCJ with potentially devastating consequences for your creditworthiness.

Most regulars, including me, don't do private advice. Be careful if you receive an offer via PM from anyone without a significant number of posts to their name, PPCs have been known to try to hook a motorist into contacting them via a PM contact.

You need to think carefully and do plenty of research about issuing a counter claim before putting pen to paper on this. We've been here every day for years and years and never seen a successful example.

Sorry that this seems to be 'knocking' your ideas, but right now a lot of them are unnecessary distractions with no hope of helping you. Concentrate on the core issue of dealing directly with your parking charge.

JustAnotherUser

I'm well aware that the implied contract is unlikely to be enforceable, though as they were notified not to send and would receive a copy it cannot be described as not being brought to their attention and highlights how daft their implied contract is.

It is after reading these forums that I ask the question about ignoring Wright Hassall as they are the rehashed debt collector ZZPS rather than solicitors representing thelandowner; I will not be ignoring court papers and will defend any claim. CCJs can only be the result of ignoring the courts not contested disputes that have been challenged and shouldn't be with debt collectors.

beamerguy

JustAnotherUser wrote: »

I'm well aware that the implied contract is unlikely to be enforceable, though as they were notified not to send and would receive a copy it cannot be described as not being brought to their attention and highlights how daft their implied contract is.

It is after reading these forums that I ask the question about ignoring Wright Hassall as they are the rehashed debt collector ZZPS rather than solicitors representing thelandowner; I will not be ignoring court papers and will defend any claim. CCJs can only be the result of ignoring the courts not contested disputes that have been challenged and shouldn't be with debt collectors.

Wright Hassall and the debt collectors don't visit your home so will never read it will they.

What makes you think that Wright Hassall represents the landowner ... the PPC issued the ticket, they have a contract with the landowner so why not complain directly to the landowner to get this cancelled

With all respect FORGET your own notice, it will get you nowhere

Coupon-mad

JustAnotherUser wrote: »

I'm well aware that the implied contract is unlikely to be enforceable, though as they were notified not to send and would receive a copy it cannot be described as not being brought to their attention and highlights how daft their implied contract is.

It is after reading these forums that I ask the question about ignoring Wright Hassall as they are the rehashed debt collector ZZPS rather than solicitors representing the landowner; I will not be ignoring court papers and will defend any claim. CCJs can only be the result of ignoring the courts not contested disputes that have been challenged and shouldn't be with debt collectors.

I do not suggest ignoring WH letters and have posted on other threads recently, suggesting people respond to deny the debt. I say they must remain in 'registered keeper mode' (not implying who was driving) and ask for 'evidence' of the alleged contract which set out the parking charge in large letters on signs (usually £100) AND proof that the spurious added 'costs' which take it over £200 were on the signs AND that this sum has been paid to ZZPS. Otherwise, this demand smacks of plucking figures out of thin air, so that WH's own client ZZPS, who are a mere debt collection call centre with no Deed of Assignment nor cause of action, can be unjustly enriched.

Point out that under the POFA 2012 only the parking charge stated on a compliant Notice to Keeper (NTK) letter can be recovered, no more (except interest and court fees of about £75).

And given that the parking firm did not serve a compliant NTK and the driver has never been evidenced - and you have no obligation in law to assist a private parking firm in this regard (Elliott v Loake being a completely inapplicable criminal case with evidence of the driver) - in fact they have no case against you.