PCN NTK help required please

homer77

Hi All,

So still nothing directly from the PPC, however this time received a letter from Wright Hassall (was expecting this as per ZZPS's last letter) who want full payment within next 14 days, and after reading through many posts on this forum I believe this may be the 'infamous' ZZPS letter although it is signed by Tim Hawker (Head of Debt Recovery). Googled and found the fella on linkedin so could this be genuine..?

I’m not sure if this is the LBC as it doesn’t state that anywhere on the letter. Just querying as to my next actions, should I still ignore or reply to state the debt is contested or is there anything I've missed. Since there is a lot of information to churn through on the Newbies thread and with the gap between correspondences I'm apprehensive to not miss any actions on my part.

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Many WH letters are just debt collection and as he is Head of Debt Recovery (if he exists) then Tim Hawker is no litigator.

But as zzzLazydaisy said when she posted on here a couple of years ago (she's a retired Solicitor) if in doubt, treat a letter as a LBC and respond robustly. It does you no harm at all to reiterate your position and looks reasonable later if a small claim ever arrives to be defended. Just make sure you do not say who was driving/what happened on the day, this is all about telling them they have no case.

You could state that the NTK fails under 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4 as it omits wording that must:

9(2)(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges...

And you could state that the online photo shows a crowded, wordy sign with the parking charge in hidden small print and which does not create any contract to match the NTK's 'vehicle not on the authorised list'. Ask to see proof, i.e. a redacted copy of the 'authorised' list.

homer77

Thank you CM, really appreciate the help and advice!

After re-reading the letter I don’t believe its the LBC, however I've uploaded it, hopefully someone can confirm.. https://postimg.org/image/vzpkbutnh/
[FONT=&quot]When they say "recommending to our client that we pass this matter over to our Litigation Department" do they mean ZZPS? also I thought only the PPC can start court proceedings?

I have written up the following to send to WH, could you proof read and advise if this is ok?[/FONT]

Wright Hassall Solicitors
Olympus Avenue
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV34 6BF

Your Ref: XXXXXX

Thank you for your letter of 19/12/2016.

First, the alleged debt is disputed with the PPC (Globe Protection) and ZZPS and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

Second, I was not driving the vehicle on the day in question and the keeper can only be held liable if a notice is compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I do not believe this is the case as the NTK fails under 9(2)(e) as it omits wording that MUST:

[FONT=&quot]9(2)(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Third, the [/FONT]online photo shows a crowded, verbose sign with the parking charge in hidden small print and does not create any contract to match the NTK's 'vehicle not on the authorised list'. I have already requested proof in the form of a redacted copy of the authorised list as well as other questions to which neither ZZPS nor Globe Protection have provided any answers to date. [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Thanks again for all the help

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do.

homer77

Hi

Totally forgot to send the letter in reply to Wright Hassall due to the festive period! Noticed the letter has an email address, support@wrighthassell.co.uk is it ok to email them instead..? just a little concerned about responding within 14 days especially with the bank holidays. Happy to post if thats better with proof of posting of course.

also wouldnt the PPC (Globe Protection) have to start court proceedings??

Many thanks

Redx

I suppose you could email it , or email + post

WH are solicitors and can act on instructions from the PPC, so if the PPC tell them to go ahead , they will (and have already done so for numerous PPC,s)

homer77

Thanks Redx,

So would they have to receive this instruction from the PPC only or can it also be from ZZPS..? I'm sure I read somewhere on this forum about a link which shows how many times a PPC has taken anyone to court and won. I don't think my PPC has ever done this but I cannot find the post that this was in, anyone know what i'm referring too?

Finally, is it worth me sending the letter directly to the PPC as well?

Regards

Umkomaas

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Globe_Protection.html

ZZPS are not the creditor, so nothing can be issued in their name. Globe would be the creditor, but who actually instructs who - who knows, they're all in this together. But it's rather academic - if court papers arrive, they arrive. If they're in ZZPS name, then there might be a problem for them, but I suspect they won't be in ZZPS's name.

homer77

Thanks Umkomaas! That's exactly what i was referring too.

yeah i guess i'll send off the letter and wait to see what happens next. On the letter front, should i send a copy to Globe as well?

Umkomaas

homer77 wrote: »

Thanks Umkomaas! That's exactly what i was referring too.

yeah i guess i'll send off the letter and wait to see what happens next. On the letter front, should i send a copy to Globe as well?

I don't think there's any right or wrong way in who to send letters to at this stage. Personally I'd reply only to WH, but you decide.