Paid for parking - Wright Hassall

LittleBigE

Good morning all

Background: Monthly fee paid to a landowner by standing order for use of a carpark near my workplace.

3 PCN's.

1: "No valid Permit displayed". NTK received outside of POFA keeper liability window. PCC and Wright Hassall advised of this but insist that procedure followed. Pictures show car parked in carpark but no picture of the "invalid Permit".

2: "No valid Permit displayed". NTK received outside of POFA keeper liability window. PCC and Wright Hassall advised of this but insist that procedure followed. Pictures show car parked in carpark but no picture of the "invalid Permit".

3: "No valid Permit displayed". NTK received inside of POFA keeper liability window but no pictures provided or response received from PCC to letters sent.


My questions are as follows:

1: I have received a "Notice of Claim" letter from Wright Hassall regarding the first 2 allegations. I replied outlining all of the salient points and they advised that they cannot assist as they are in the recovery phase and I will receive evidence once this moves to litigation phase. Am I right in thinking that they are still behaving as debt collectors and that I should now wait for court documentation?

2: Can they progress allegation 3 without providing any photographic evidence or affidavit?


If it goes to court I intend to press on lack of liability for the first 2, backed up by unfair contract terms, no loss to land owner as due payments made, and no evidence of the permit being invalid (you can see a permit on the photographs but no details of date etc). I also intend to press the "Double Recovery" point to reduce any potential outlay if I were to lose.

Are Wright Hassall particularly litigious at present?

The_Deep

Are Wright Hassall particularly litigious at present?


Yes, they are solicitors. It is their raison d'etre.

Umkomaas

Are Wright Hassall particularly litigious at present?

Extremely - they are a law firm, litigation is their business! You're asking the wrong question. It should be 'Are <PPC> particularly litigious at present?' If you tell us who the PPC is, we can give you the answer.

WH are relatively quiet at the moment (compared to BW Legal and Gladstones), but in general terms we don't rate them as one of the front line private parking small claims solicitors.

To whom do the letters require payment? If it is to WH or the PPC, then treat them as Letters Before Claim, if it's to a debt collector then they are debt recovery letters. But with 3 of them simmering, the prospect of them turning into LBCs increases.

But the PPC is key.

Coupon-mad

Are Wright Hassall particularly litigious at present?

Yes they litigate but not often in parking cases. As Umkomaas says, the more important question is whether the PPC is litigious.

LittleBigE

Thanks Everyone.

The PPC is Comprehensive Management Services Ltd
The Debt Collector is ZZPS