Wright Hassell - Slightly unusual predicament, advise required

Demis76

Hello, sorry to start a new thread, but I am unsure what the best course of action is for this situation.

My partner received a fine by post from Civil Enforcement Ltd. in August 2016. The date of the incident was 26th July 2016. Before I knew anything about it she sent an email to the address on the letter contesting it on the basis of inadequate signage and the car park used to be free. This email included the reference number for the ticket.

She received no response to the email.

Unfortunately she then moved house and forgot all about it. This week she has collected her mail from the old property for the first time and has found this claim has passed through ZZPS and is now a right hassle affair.

There are two letters from Wright and Hassell, the last of which is dated 30th December and is titled: FORMAL LETTER OF CLAIM. It states;

"Payment is now long overdue and accordingly we give you notice that unless the 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 liabaility for costs"

Is there any use in responding to WH refering them back to their client, pointing that an appeal was lodged within days of receipt and no response was received? We had considered the matter resolved until collecting this mail and are now aware that they may be viewing us as an easy target due to no response. The sent email could be produced if required in court.

Any advice or expertise greatly appreciated.

twhitehousescat

wh are actually ZZPS in disguise , ZZPS buy there notepaper to frighten you

who does it say to pay , ZZPS or other scum or CEL?

Coupon-mad

Spell it right and Google Wright Hassall BMPA.

Demis76

Thank you for your replies.

The last letter received has exectly the same wording as the one which shows up under the suggested google search with the exception that it doesn't have the table at the top. Instead it lists info without a table. There is no reference to a "Client" in the letter at all. It does however say "Car Park Operator - CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD." ZZPS are not mentioned here.

The previous Wright Hassall letter (09/12/16) said "We have been instrcucted by ZZPS who are acting on behalf of CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD in connection with recovery of the debt..."

At no point in either letter does it say who they are asking us to pay, only call the number to make an automated payment in the 09/12 letter and to call to dicuss with office opening times on the 30/12 letter. On both letters the number is the same and matches the one on the headed paper.

Also, both letters are signed by an individual.

ZZPS previously sent two letters one of which said it will next get sent to "Our Clients solicitors" but in the same paragraph referred to sending it out "Our solicitors Wright Hassall LLP"

Still unsure if this should be ignored or not.

Again, this was contested immediately after receiving the initial ticket, but that was ignored by Civil Enforcement.

Coupon-mad

I would ignore it because we find CEL issue their own claims and if they do, you can then defend. We've never lost one v them and in fact, they've always discontinued.

Demis76

Thanks for this. Our defence if needed is clearly that we appealed and were ignored. At the very least we would expect an adequate and accountable appeals process from CEF.

Demis76

*CEL not CEF

Coupon-mad

Demis76 wrote: »

Thanks for this. Our defence if needed is clearly that we appealed and were ignored. At the very least we would expect an adequate and accountable appeals process from CEF.

No, it isn't. Read 'cel defence' threads!