I am an idiot and now I have a ZZPS after me

Coupon-mad

As the cheque was cashed in, I am assuming they accepted my settlement.

A reasonable assumption.

TheLegendaryN

Quentin wrote: »

Did you say in your letter that the cheque was in full and final settlement of the disputed charge?

No I didn't, below is exactly what I wrote:

"
Attached you will find a cheque of £10 which I believe is a fair offer and compensates the business for its loss of parking amenity whilst I was there.
"

I guess I fudged up pretty bad, firstly by admitting I was the driver, and then not using legal jargon. If only I knew about the newbies guide before I sent my initial appeal. I used a guide from 'This is money' to help me create my appeal. :doh:

However on the bright side, when I wrote the letters I used a shortened version of my name (e.g. instead of Johnathon I wrote John). As the next letter I received from CMS was a NTK, and it had my full name, which they probably got from DVLA. I believe they are trying to go after me as the owner

beamerguy

TheLegendaryN wrote: »

No I didn't, below is exactly what I wrote:

"
Attached you will find a cheque of £10 which I believe is a fair offer and compensates the business for its loss of parking amenity whilst I was there.
"

I guess I fudged up pretty bad, firstly by admitting I was the driver, and then not using legal jargon. If only I knew about the newbies guide before I sent my initial appeal. I used a guide from 'This is money' to help me create my appeal. :doh:

However on the bright side, when I wrote the letters I used a shortened version of my name (e.g. instead of Johnathon I wrote John). As the next letter I received from CMS was a NTK, and it had my full name, which they probably got from DVLA. I believe they are trying to go after me as the owner

Just by saying "i was there" does not mean you were the driver..

Yes they got the keepers name from the DVLA, that does not mean you were driving.

You have tried to settle this by paying £10 for losses which you assume to be correct. They in turn accepted your £10 cheque, they banked it thereby accepting your offer.

Shame you did not put "In full and final settlement" but no worries, they have never rejected your payment or even said it is part payment.

They would struggle in court to explain their loss of the balance they claim.
Indeed, you were very generous to even pay £10

You have no doubt read about the Beavis case.
This revolved around Mr Beavis overstaying by one hour after the two hours free parking had expired. Mr Beavis claimed the charge was unfair but the "supreme court" decided it was fair.
BAD MOVE, but there you go, now Mrs May awaits a decision from the same lot.

I mention this because these idiot debt collectors try to use this as a lever and that's because they don't know the difference between a Brie cheese to a Camembert cheese.

They are pond low life who will say or do anything to get your money.

If this was me, I would wait .... take no notice of the debt cowboys, whatever they dream up next. Accept their silly letters, use them as fire lighters or treat them as raw sewage

If it goes to court (somewhat doubtful), the point to a judge will be you paid a fair amount which was accepted and strict proof is required for their claim and that means a breakdown

just wait

TheLegendaryN

Hi all,

I mentioned earlier that the charge was £120 but it was, in fact £100 (sorry for the noting the wrong price).

I received a letter before claim letter from Wright Hassall Solicitors a couple of days ago giving me 14 days to pay £208.

The link below is a collections of photos of the car park, I was parked in bay 16

goo.gl

-

/photos/t4BUSMu2oWzjJB9i8

beamerguy

TheLegendaryN wrote: »

Hi all,

I mentioned earlier that the charge was £120 but it was, in fact £100 (sorry for the noting the wrong price).

I received a letter before claim letter from Wright Hassall Solicitors a couple of days ago giving me 14 days to pay £208.

The link below is a collections of photos of the car park, I was parked in bay 16

goo.gl

-

/photos/t4BUSMu2oWzjJB9i8

you need to show this as the full url but use hxxp instead of http

Scan the WH letter and do the same, WH do "rent a letter head" to debt collectors so need to be sure the claim letter is real

TheLegendaryN

This is the link for the pictures of the car park:

hxxps://goo.gl/photos/t4BUSMu2oWzjJB9i8

This is the link for the scanned letter:

hxxps://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz2wmZg1v2PraWI1VlB2VW05NmM

Coupon-mad

beamerguy wrote: »

WH do "rent a letter head" to debt collectors

Yep and it is this one:

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

A ZZPS letter, never been near a solicitor's desk!

IGNORE ZZPS, they are useless debt collectors and POWERLESS.

Only the PPC can take you to court so if you get court papers, come back here.

yotmon

Have a re-read of your letter to them to see if you have given the driver away, as if u haven't then u can still rely on pofa.

How much was the NTK asking for - as by the time they sent it, I'm assuming the cheque for £10.00 had already been cashed. If they are not accepting it as full and final payment, then i'm sure they must only ask for 'outstanding' monies owed ?

From PoFa Sec.4.(7) 2 c
"inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—"

If they are still asking u for the full amount then they have failed keeper liability ?

TheLegendaryN

Thank you all for your quick and useful advice. I will continue to ignore all letters until I get court letters.

Regarding the £10 I paid to them, they have cashed it in. I believe they are acting like they have never recieved the payment. In my letter I did not write I am the driver. I simply wrote, "I parked my car".

After they cashed in my cheque, they sent me a letter as the owner (dvla acquired info). I replied to that letter telling them that there was a tech error and we settled this with £10. Two months later (a month ago) they replied to that letter, saying that the time for appeal is too late and they've instructed zzps to handle the case. Note: I sent the tech error letter the day after I received the NTK letter

I belive I do have a strong case if this does go to court.

Thanks once again everyone

DoaM

TheLegendaryN wrote: »

In my letter I did not write I am the driver.

...Yes you did...

TheLegendaryN wrote: »

I simply wrote, "I parked my car".

You told them you were the driver.

Tenuously, you could have been a passenger but took the action of parking the car. That action would still mean you were the driver as far as any contractual claim is concerned.