Looking for advice

Coupon-mad

if this does go to court, and I lose, am I then given a CCJ?

No, it's not a silly question but has been answered umpteen times. No. You would pay and get no CCJ. But on here we still win 99% of cases defended in court. Only one was lost that we can recall in the past year or so (when coached here and defended well, and where the poster stuck around and also came back and got forum advice re their WS and evidence, and was well prepared for the hearing). Almost every case won or discontinued, again and again.

There is a response to a WH letter on here if you want to find it, written by Johnersh. Easy to find.

Quentin

biged670 wrote: »

.. if this does go to court, and I lose, am I then given a CCJ?

Yes


If you lose in court then you do get a County Court Judgement against you.


Most people are worried that a CCJ against them means their credit record is impacted, but the CCJ will be removed from the register provided the defendant pays it off in full within a month of the CCJ against them

biged670

Quentin wrote: »

Yes


If you lose in court then you do get a County Court Judgement against you.


Most people are worried that a CCJ against them means their credit record is impacted, but the CCJ will be removed from the register provided the defendant pays it off in full within a month of the CCJ against them

So it's marked against me but then subsequently removed? I must say that is a little worrying. Is the CCJ visible on credit reference agencies while it is 'marked against me'? Once removed is there a way a lender can view history of it?

Quentin

biged670 wrote: »

.... Once removed is there a way a lender can view history of it?

No once removed it is expunged.


You must pay it off in full within the month.


The quicker it's paid the quicker it's expunged.


To be sure it's done quickly a defendant with a CCJ against them should get a receipt from the Claimant and inform the court the CCJ has been paid.

Coupon-mad

biged670 wrote: »

Once removed is there a way a lender can view history of it?

No, there isn't. There is NO EFFECT on your credit rating, and we help people win 99% of the time, in all well-defended cases on here (by posters who have stuck around for more advice right up until their hearing) - only one 'fully coached' defended claim was lost within our memory, for at least the past year.

We used to see more lost (years ago, we've been doing these for many years and when PPC court claims were rarer, we saw more lost by victims due to lack of knowledge and experience) but now, forum defences and procedure is much better and tighter.

The advice here is free and it is sound. It IS worth the fight.

biged670

Thanks guys... I will continue to grind it out.

Coupon-mad, I've found the 'Wright Hassall letter' you refer to above. It is advisable to send this letter to the managing partner, as discussed in the other thread, or to continue to ignore?

Cheers

Coupon-mad

It is your choice, but as New Generation Parking Management are occasionally litigious then on balance, I would go on the assertive attack, I think, and respond very robustly. Adapt Johnersh's letter but keep it in the same tone.

Include a special short paragraph about the criminal charges brought against NGPM this year, and the fact they pleaded guilty:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-generation-parking-management-found.html

...and add another short, punchy paragraph about the fact you will raise with the court, the seriously misleading nature of the fake 'debt collector letters' pointed out by Umkomaas earlier in your thread, above. Similar to the Wonga scandal about fake solicitors, very similar (although WH are not fake solicitors, their letters and the 'debt collector' letters are hugely misleading in themselves):

https://www.ft.com/content/b9645aca-fc44-11e3-86dc-00144feab7de

It can do no harm, and you could even send a copy to your MP and ask him/her to support the planned Bill if the Government act decently and actually curb the scam industry, and not simply legitimise it.

And how about sending a copy of your letter and a copy of all the letters you have received, to the local Trading Standards, especially if any of the letters/PCN or signage, claims that NGPM have membership of any trade body or accreditation that they do not. Look hard, look at logos, do some digging...

...and - oh yes - let WH see that you are sending a copy to your named MP and Trading Standards at your local Council (not the CAB), by putting all the recipients cc'd into that letter, in a clear heading at the top. WH won't like that. You could also include the landowner of the site...

biged670

Coupon-mad, really appreciate your guidance of everything up until now.

Would you mind proofing this draft letter and offering any suggestions where you see fit?

Dear (Managing Partner),

CC: MP (Local MP)
CC: Trading Standards Dept (Local Office)

I refer to your correspondence of xx/xx/xx. I wish to make a complaint on the basis that your letter is threatening, misleading as to the law and an abuse of the process of debt recovery. I refer to SRA Warning Notice 11/06/2013 ("the Warning Notice").

To the extent that the correspondence may have been sent by a third party, the letter is on Wright Hassall letterhead and the firm is responsible for the content. I wish to raise the following points:

1. Your letter states you or agents on behalf of your client will seek to obtain a CCJ which may affect
1.1. My ability to obtain credit
1.2. My ability to borrow funds
1.3 My ability to obtain employment
1.4. Be subject to bailiff enforcement or an attachment of earnings order.

All of the above points are misleading as to the position and may impair access to justice. The Court will determine any dispute if proceedings are commenced. In the event that a judgment is awarded in your client's favour none of the above will occur provided that the Judgment is paid promptly. This is not made clear precisely to prompt the recipient into early payment and to discourage any defence of the action (however meritorious).

2. The full extent of Court enforcement is set out within the letter in a manner which is aggressive and intimidation without making the process of debt recovery clear (in clear disregard of the Warning Notice).

3. Your correspondence gives rise to no consideration of the recipient's position or any defence of the proposed action or consideration of negotiated settlement, only payment of the debt, which is neither admitted nor proven

4. At £160 the debt sought would appear to be set at a level beyond that which is likely to be recoverable in the small claims court (or at all) and may therefore misstate the correct legal position regarding the recovery of the parking charge in this matter, were your client to be successful.

5. The letter received appears to come from an individual who purports to be Head of Debt Recovery at Wright Hassall. Despite this, he is not listed on the firm's website and is not a registered solicitor. It is unclear as to what his position is, or if he even exists. It is further not clear that Wright Hassall have appropriately represented their status as required by the Warning Notice.

I would expect you to accurately and openly represent your authority/status in all communications, and to convey in those communications the correct legal position with regard to debts and the debt recovery process.

Further to the above points, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that New Generation Parking Management, the company who started this whole ordeal, pleaded guilty to charges in breach of the Consumer Protection Act 2008 earlier this year. I believe this is a direct representation of the company’s character and what it is they actually stand for.

If this matter is to be brought to court, I confirm that I will offer a full defence. I will also raise with the court the seriously misleading nature of the so-called ‘debt collector’ letters I have received from companies who are controlled under the same directorships as New Generation Parking Management, namely The Financial Enforcement Company.

Please be informed, I have sent a copy of this letter to my local Trading Standards Office, and the MP for my local constituency, MP (Name of MP). I have also forwarded copies of your firm’s letter dated (xx/xx/xx) along with all previous correspondence I have received from ZZPS, The Financial Enforcement Company, and New Generation Parking Management.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours faithfully,

[Deleted User]

The first para of the bold section is a quotation from the SRA warning notice and probably should be restored as a quotation.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of a substantive (i.e. properly considered) response to one of these - yet. I am aware that some have had letters with brief replies and that some matters appear to have vanished into abeyance, but with a 6 year limitation there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether they will be actioned at a later stage. Therein lies the difficulty.

biged670

Johnersh wrote: »

The first para of the bold section is a quotation from the SRA warning notice and probably should be restored as a quotation.

Thanks for the heads up, will get that amended... I'm not sure what you mean regarding the 6yr limitation in the second part of your post though?