Wright Hassall

bootup

Hello everyone,
My colleague has received two parking tickets for parking his company vehicle at his home for a short time, but not in his allocated parking place. He was parked on double yellow lines but this is private property. The landowner is not interested in assisting so an appeal was made as below:

"We continue to receive parking tickets from you at this location where the driver is resident.
The vehicle’s are leased by this company and were briefly parked at the resident’s address where we are sure the landowners have no intention of pursuing their residents in this manner.
We understand that apart from the moral imperative explained above you will require further persuading to cancel these PCN’s and would therefore wish to emphasize the following which will we trust, support our challenge. This will form the basis of our appeal to POPLA.
1. The keeper is not liable for this charge under POFA 2012
2. The amount charged not commercially viable..
3. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
4. No contract with registered keeper as per ‘The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations 2013’
5. Bridge Pam are trying to enforce an unfair contract as per ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999’ & OFT ‘Unfair Contract Terms Guidance’
6. Incorrect information on PCN.
7. The PCN breaches code of practice in a number of areas
8. Bridge Pam have breached the new Consumer Contracts Directive from the EU, specifically the information requirements in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations 2013:
9. They failed to serve by 'durable medium' in advance, the geographical address and phone number of their client, since Bridge Pam are acting as an agent of the principle
10. Also they failed to ensure that the contract was 'expressly agreed' which is a requirement of the regulations - agreement can no longer be assumed or implied. It is trite law that a contract read (or in this case, not read) merely from signage leads only to 'implied consent': 'a manifestation of consent to something through conduct, including inaction or silence' or ' Consent that is inferred from signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence.'
11. Signing sporadic at best and not seen by the driver.
Quite clearly express consent (as required by this law) was never given to enter into contract.
Quite clearly express consent (as required by this law) was never given to be subject to additional unsolicited charges which is what this PCN quite clearly amounts to.
So it fails the test of 'express agreement' in advance of a consumer contract, which is now demanded by the EU Directive and current Consumer Regulations i.e.'Express consent is clearly and unmistakably stated, rather than implied.'
We trust that given the above, these pcn’s will be cancelled or a POPLA reference be given for each pcn reference quoted above.
We would add that we are happy to go to a court of our choosing to defend our position and at which time full disclosure of our case will be presented."

No letter of rejection just a demand from ZZPS for £172. An e-mail was sent drawing their attention to the challenges made to which they responded with the unpaid PCN has progressed to the debt recovery stage and that POFA 2012 does not apply.
Sent a reply stating that as they didn’t know the name of the driver and that POFA 2012 wasn’t applicable, they couldn’t pursue a limited company.
Then got a letter from Wright Hassall demanding more money to which the following was sent. letter was sent:

Dear Sirs,
We are in receipt of your letter demanding payment for an alleged parking Offence as referenced above.
As a professional debt recovery company we know that you have an understanding of the law which has been tested thousands of times in the past.
ZZPS and Bridge Security have failed to meet the criteria laid down in the POFA 2012 legislation which has been pointed out already. They have denied the use of POFA 2012 so are reverting to the law of contract to pursue their claim. In order to pursue parking revenue under their preferred legislation, they must address their claims to the driver of the vehicle at the time. As you know you cannot pursue a company as they were not the driver at the time.
Given that you are fully aware of the legislation, (see the many online references to your company which you monitor), further pursuit of monies is tantamount to harassment. Should you wish to continue to pursue your claims you are required to justify as much by quoting the legislation under which you assume authority for such actions and for which we clearly deny exists.
This is now the end of the matter. Should you wish to continue to correspond with us we hereby give notice that an administration charge of £72.00 will be incurred payable within 14 days. There will be a 50% discount for payment within 7 days from the date of invoice. Date of receipt will be assumed to be two working days after invoice date.
This is a courtesy response to your letter dated 21/07/2017 and an advice of our own charges. Before deciding on your further action it may prove useful to you to read our previous correspondence showing that there is no legal claim against us.

Then got another letter from them as a formal letter of claim stating that they will enforce a judgement order and there will be no alternative than to issue County Court Proceedings.
In short, appealed but got no rejection just demands from debt collectors, they don’t know who was driving and the van is a hired vehicle. Should they be worried.
Apologies for the length of this thing but I don’t use Microsoft Word and Libre Office is in a format that won’t upload..
Thanks in advance for any advice.

[Deleted User]

Use Dropbox to scan and post the letters.
Use the Newbies thread
Use Google to read Jopson v Homeguard

beamerguy

Is it really Wright Hassall or a debt collector in disguise ??

It will interesting to see how they reply as it has come to
the stage of testing their ability and knowledge

In a recent case, a judge showed his dismay at Wright Hassall
bringing a particular case to court ... Wright Hassall lost

The only comment I would make is the use of the word "professional" ?
Anyone involved in the parking scam cannot be classed as such

bootup

I completely agree Beamerguy, professional was an error. The letters are on Wright Hassall headed paper and the address is the same as their website.

Thanks too Johnersh, i'll read Jopson v Homeguard and have a go at using Dropbox. Apologies, not very good at this.

Thanks for the support.

bootup

These are the dropbox links to the correspondence. Never received a reply to the the challenge.
Hope these work OK. Never used dropbox before.

The Challenge
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hhomp4ai6o8c2um/Bridge%20Pam%20996121131.%209962152929.%209.3.2017%20%282%29.docx?dl=0

ZZPS Reply
https://www.dropbox.com/s/50q4tr7z4rzi82n/ZZPS%202nd%20letter.jpg?dl=0

Reply to Wright Hassall first demand
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dzx620z6y1xwool/Wright%20Hassle%20LLP.docx?dl=0

Wright Hassall Letter of Claim
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uli9mrwim98qkxz/Wright%20Hassall%20JPEG.jpg?dl=0

Thanks again for the help.

beamerguy

bootup wrote: »

These are the dropbox links to the correspondence. Never received a reply to the the challenge.
Hope these work OK. Never used dropbox before.

The Challenge
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hhomp4ai6o8c2um/Bridge%20Pam%20996121131.%209962152929.%209.3.2017%20%282%29.docx?dl=0

ZZPS Reply
https://www.dropbox.com/s/50q4tr7z4rzi82n/ZZPS%202nd%20letter.jpg?dl=0

Reply to Wright Hassall first demand
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dzx620z6y1xwool/Wright%20Hassle%20LLP.docx?dl=0

Wright Hassall Letter of Claim
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uli9mrwim98qkxz/Wright%20Hassall%20JPEG.jpg?dl=0

Thanks again for the help.

Correct me if I'm wrong forum members
Wright Hassall Letter of Claim

1: This is a ZZPS debt collection letter on WH letterhead
2: The principal of the parking charge is Bridge Security, not ZZPS
Apart from their pretend charge of £70 which can be dismissed,
on what authority do ZZPS have to instruct solicitors

The letter continues to assume the OP has already lost with menacing
threats of CCJ's and their collection methods and all this without
a court and judge ever being involved.

The threat of a winding up petition over £208 is laughable

The OP should be talking to Trading Standards about this rogue trader
as their method of trading is threatening, menacing and that of a
back street loan shark

It is indeed ZZPS that should be served a winding up order to protect
the public from their disgusting behaviour

bootup

Wow, now I understand the reason for your question as to whether this really was a WH letter. Very bizarre but having spent many hours looking at various threads, Parking Prankster, Pepipoo etc. I'm not surprised by any of the stunts they get up too.
Thanks again

beamerguy

bootup wrote: »

Wow, now I understand the reason for your question as to whether this really was a WH letter. Very bizarre but having spent many hours looking at various threads, Parking Prankster, Pepipoo etc. I'm not surprised by any of the stunts they get up too.
Thanks again

Welcome to the world of scammers

Lets see what other forum members have to say as ZZPS
has been done to death on this forum.

I'm sure you can now see the huge flaws of ZZPS and the
scare tactics of this wild bunch.
What is amazing is that Wright Hassall even allow them
to degrade their firm in such a way that it firmly puts
Wright Hassall into the top scammers chart

Trading Standards and your MP is the way forward

If a judge saw this letter he would be none to pleased that
a simple debt collector is trying to take over his job

Coupon-mad

Johnersh has also written a letter of complaint before, about that WH letter. Easy to find by searching the forum for 'Wright Hassall cathartic' and 'show posts' and find Johnersh's example.

You could adapt that, and enclose a £72 invoice offering your company's 50% discount, after all the company said you would, so as a professional firm, carry on!

This is now the end of the matter. Should you wish to continue to correspond with us we hereby give notice that an administration charge of £72.00 will be incurred payable within 14 days. There will be a 50% discount for payment within 7 days from the date of invoice. Date of receipt will be assumed to be two working days after invoice date.

This is a courtesy response to your letter dated 21/07/2017 and an advice of our own charges. Before deciding on your further action it may prove useful to you to read our previous correspondence showing that there is no legal claim against us.

Then got another letter from them as a formal letter of claim

I like the company's stance, and against a two-bit firm called 'Bridge PAM' (stupid name) who do not use the POFA, there is (seemingly) no way you can lose this in court, as long as your company doesn't miss any court deadlines or directions. But because of CPS v AJH Films about vicarious liability of a company, where their driver is using a company car, you do need more in the defence, explaining why your driver had primacy of contract at their place of residence.

The driver will need to dig out their lease or tenancy terms, if this does go to a claim.

bootup

Thanks a lot for the replies and yes Coupon-mad, i'll make sure the company does send the invoice. I don't understand why they continue, even though Beamerguy's not. Whichever way they look at it they can't win. If they go down the POFA route which is now too late they have the problem of the hired vehicle or they don't know the driver so under contract law they're screwed.They must be nuts.
Guess i'll just wait and see

beamerguy

Just a further note about the ZZPS threatogram

For lovers of good "english" it's a somewhat illiterate letter

"get the bottom of this" more like up them

The Beavis case dealt with one thing and one thing only
and nothing to do with the OP

Rubbish again from ZZPS