Letter before Claim - Wright Hassall/ZZPS

marty1888

I received a LBC today from Wright Hassall on the instructions of ZZPS stating that I have 14 days from the date of the letter to settle the PCN claim.

In December 2016 I was issued with a ticket for parking 'Without Valid Permit or Authority' in my space at work.

Unfortunately the permit had fallen from the windscreen when the PCN was issued but I do have valid authority to park there and have done for 8 years without issue.

Intially I rang the number on the PCN and requested that they remove it as it was my allocated space, paid for by the company I work for and that I have a valid permit to park there. They requested I send over photos so I did along with a formal email appealing the ticket.

They replied back with their own photos and said that they did not dispute that I had authority to park there just that I hadn't been displaying a permit at the time.

Should I have received a POPLA at the point where I emailed the appeal?

Subsequently, a letter was received to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle (my partner) and she passed on my details to them via email.

For the past number of months ZZPS and Wright Hassall have been contacting me regularly in regards to the alleged debt which has now increased from £25 to £196.00 inlcuding additonal charges.

What are my options here?

Thanks.

Umkomaas

'Letter Before Claim' or 'Letter of Claim'?

To whom does the letter tell you to pay (if you're daft enough that is!)?

Signed by 'Tim Hawker'?

marty1888

Umkomaas wrote: »

'Letter Before Claim' or 'Letter of Claim'?

To whom does the letter tell you to pay (if you're daft enough that is!)?

Signed by 'Tim Hawker'?

Yes, signed by the very man.

It says 'FORMAL LETTER OF CLAIM' as the heading but in the last paragraph says 'This is a letter before claim pursuant to Practice Direction or Pre Action Conduct Protocols".

It doesn't actually say who to pay, it just says that they have been instructed by ZZPS and that I should call them to discuss repayment and avoid further action.

Umkomaas

Debt collector letter. Treat as per the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4 and the following thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

it just says that they have been instructed by ZZPS and that I should call them to discuss repayment and avoid further action.

ZZPS cannot 'instruct' them in this matter, because even if it was a debt (which it isn't), it doesn't belong to ZZPS.

beamerguy

You have not said who the PPC is ?

It is the PPC who would instruct Wright Hassall not ZZPS

Wright Hassall rent out their letterhead which is a disgusting
thing to do for a solicitor and that is why WH are seen as low grade
solicitors.
In a recent court case WH were criticised by judge for their bad
behaviour

ZZPS are simple debt collectors which use low life methods
Welcome to world of scammers and liars

But who is the PPC ?

marty1888

The PPC is OKS Empire Ltd TA Local Car Park Management:

http://www.localcarparkmanagement.com/

Letter states 'We are instructed by ZZPS on behalf of the Car Park Operator".

Safe to assume then that this is just an additional threat? I've ignored all previous corresondence but read the advice that if anything suggesting LBC needs to be actioned. Am I good to continue to ignore?

Umkomaas

I very much doubt that this will ever get anywhere near a courtroom, unless you're the unluckiest of people and become their first ever court case.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/OKS_Empire.html_TA_Local_Car_Park_Management.html

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203682912-Local-Car-Park-Management

Fruitcake

The advice to ignore private parking charges has not been given here since the law changed in 2012. As they are BPA members this could easily have been beaten at PoPLA.

Ignoring debt collectors however is safe and is all you can do now unless you get real court papers.

marty1888

Fruitcake wrote: »

The advice to ignore private parking charges has not been given here since the law changed in 2012. As they are BPA members this could easily have been beaten at PoPLA.

Ignoring debt collectors however is safe and is all you can do now unless you get real court papers.

I assumed that when they rejected the initial email appeal that they should have provided me with a POPLA code or would I have needed to specifically ask for that?

I have all correspondence in relation to that.

beamerguy

marty1888 wrote: »

The PPC is OKS Empire Ltd TA :

http://www.localcarparkmanagement.com/

Letter states 'We are instructed by ZZPS on behalf of the Car Park Operator".

Safe to assume then that this is just an additional threat? I've ignored all previous corresondence but read the advice that if anything suggesting LBC needs to be actioned. Am I good to continue to ignore?

The first comment I would make is looking at that website, the parking company operate a "self ticketing" operation ?
That means that somebody is probably paid a commission using a camera to which pictures are sent to the operator.

"They replied back with their own photos and said that they did not dispute that I had authority to park there just that I hadn't been displaying a permit at the time."


In a further recent case, a judge dismissed the case where a permit could not be seen as it had slipped off the dashboard.
They agree you are authorised to park so whoever took the pictures did not see the permit. The pictures will only show your windscreen

Who has authorised you to park and since when ?

"Letter states 'We are instructed by ZZPS on behalf of the Car Park Operator".

This is total rubbish, ZZPS capacity is ONLY chasing people and it must be Local Car Park Management who instruct WH

This highly misleading information using Wright Hassall's letter heading should be reported to the SRA
https://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

Wright Hassall as solicitors would be crazy to even face a judge with such rubbish

marty1888

beamerguy wrote: »

The first comment I would make is looking at that website, the parking company operate a "self ticketing" operation ?
That means that somebody is probably paid a commission using a camera to which pictures are sent to the operator.

"They replied back with their own photos and said that they did not dispute that I had authority to park there just that I hadn't been displaying a permit at the time."


In a further recent case, a judge dismissed the case where a permit could not be seen as it had slipped off the dashboard.
They agree you are authorised to park so whoever took the pictures did not see the permit. The pictures will only show your windscreen

Who has authorised you to park and since when ?

"Letter states 'We are instructed by ZZPS on behalf of the Car Park Operator".

This is total rubbish, ZZPS capacity is ONLY chasing people and it must be Local Car Park Management who instruct WH

This highly misleading information using Wright Hassall's letter heading should be reported to the SRA
https://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

Essentially, the Landlord of our building employs someone to wander the car park everyday checking permits, they then issue tickets for not displaying a valid permit which is what happened in this instance. I think it's then passed on to Local Car Park Management to collect/manage.