Wright Hassall - Please advise!

Insert_User_Name_Here

Hi All,

This is my first post so please be gentle! I have read the FAQ's and searched the forum but haven't managed to come up with a definitive answer to my dilemma, as follows:

Bach in March 2015 I received an invoice for a parking event in my car that happened when I wasn't using it. I decided to ignore it (which was wrong as this forum has now taught me - but ignore it I did....) There were a few more sporadic letters over the months from the parking company, then from ZZPS and finally from Wright Hassall but I assumed they would get bored and move on. However I have now received a 'Formal Letter of Claim' from Wright Hassall which I now wonder if I should finally respond to. And if so, how?

I'll copy the letter in full below, and if anyone could advise on how I should best proceed I would be most grateful:

"Dear XXXXX

FORMAL LETTER OF CLAIM

Wright Hassall Ref: XXX
PCN Number: XXXX
VRN: XXXX
Location: Kings Heath Retail Park, Birmingham B14 7SN
Issue date XX/03/15 XX:XX:XX
Parking event: Parked on private property in breach of the prominently displayed terms & conditions
Car Park Operator: Civil Enforcement Ltd
Outstanding Balance: £236.00

We previously wrote to you in connection with the recovery of the above debt, which has been incurred following the failure to repay the above Parking Charge Notice.

Payment is now long overdue and accordingly we give you notice that unless this debt is repaid within 14 days of the date of this letter we will review this matter and may be left with no alternative but to issue County Court proceedings seeking a money judgement order which may increase your liability for costs. The details of the judgement will be entered on the register of county court judgements. It will remain on the register of judgements, orders and fines for 6 years. Please note that this may impact your ability to obtain future credit as this information is available to lenders and finance companies.

Should the debt remain unpaid after the expiry of a judgement order then we may commence enforcement action to recover the above amount plus any costs incurred, via one of the following methods:

• Issuing an Attachment of Earnings application. If this order is granted it instructs your employer to deduct money from your wages to pay back your debt
• Issuing a Warrant of Control application. If this order is granted the court permits the use of Bailliffs in the recovery of the total debt outstanding plus costs.

Please contact us on 01926 758 101 to discuss repayment and avoid the need for any further action. Our offices are open between the hours of 9:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Thursday and 9:00am and 5:30pm on a Friday.

This letter is in compliance with the applicable Pre Action Protocols, copies may be found at (link to gov_justice website)

Please note that free independent advice and assistance can be obtained from the fee independence organisations in the attached table overleaf.

We look forward to hearing from you."

Any advice would be gratefully received.

Insert_User_Name_Here

My main questions are:
1. Does this count as an official 'Letter Before Claim'
2. Are they able to pursue me as keeper?

I believe the 'offence' was overstaying the one hour limit in a Homebase car-park, which I believe the driver visited but did not make a purchase. The rules are signposted but the driver failed to spot them

Coupon-mad

This should help:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203747112-Wright-Hassall

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5550717

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71592680#Comment_71592680

HTH

Insert_User_Name_Here

Many thanks for that. So to pursue me as keeper the original letter must have arrived within 30 days of the event? Is this correct?

Coupon-mad

No.

An ANPR PCN issued under the POFA must be served within 14 days and anyway, CEL do not use the POFA wording. They can't hold a keeper liable even if they served the Notice in time. Their choice - driver liability only.

Insert_User_Name_Here

Great - so if I reply using something along the lines of 'I wasn't driving and am under no obligation to tell you who was, so sling yer hook' (I've seen the proper wording elsewhere on here, just need to dig it out) I should be in the clear?

Coupon-mad

Possibly, or you may have to repeat the same thing but in more detail, as a defence if they throw a small claim at you. We've seen them all off from CEL this year (search CEL defence and you will find plenty of examples).

None even went to a hearing after being defended with our help but you can't ignore court deadlines or letters, there may be work ahead.

Insert_User_Name_Here

Ok, thanks for the advice so far. I've come up with this response to their 'formal letter of claim' (see below). Although I am now wondering whether I should respond at all, as it isn't clear to me that this is anything other than another threat to scare me into paying. Perhaps I should just wait to see if they do go down the court route and respond then instead? Comments please - letter below:

Wright Hassall Solicitors
Olympus Avenue
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV34 6BF

Your Ref: XXXXXX

FORMAL REJECTION OF CLAIM

I received your letter dated XX/12/16 referring to a parking event in 2015 when a vehicle registered in my name was supposedly ‘parked on private property in breach of the prominently displayed terms and conditions’.

I was not driving the vehicle on the day in question and the keeper can only be held liable if a notice compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was issued within 14 days of the event. As such a notice was absent, this Claimant is unable to hold the keeper liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

As this part of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is the only means by which the Keeper can be held liable, and there is no other method by which liability can be transferred, I reject any claim against me and will robustly defend this in court if necessary.

Coupon-mad

You should respond to a LBC, because at hearing stage, you can be shown to be unreasonable. Have a look at Small Claims pre-action protocol (Google it, the rules and bullet points are easy to understand) and you will see all parties are expected to make efforts to resolve any dispute. Ignoring can be painted as unreasonable.

Your response above is perfectly reasonable from a keeper who was not driving, spot on.

Insert_User_Name_Here

Great - that's going in the post today then! Thanks for your help, and I'll let you if there are any more developments.

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

I would email a copy as well, and keep proof of emailing and proof of posting (free cert from the PO Counter, not recorded/signed for).