Premier Park Ltd, ZZPS and Wright Hassall - formal letter of claim

sawahtee

Hi all,

Just to confirm, I've read the Newbies thread and followed as much info as possible on there but here are the circumstances of this case if you can offer any further advice:

-The driver overstayed 20 minutes at a 3 hours limited car park operated by Premier Park.
-NTK was received and an appeal was lodged to state that keeper was not the driver and only limited details of driver was known.
-Premier Park replied stating that deadline for appeal had been missed and debt was now with ZZPS.
-Keeper later contacted ZZPS with the same appeal and was told that Wright Hassall were now instructed to deal.
-A short while later the keeper received 2 letters from WH, the second titled "Formal Letter of Claim"
-Keeper contacted Wright Hassall with the same appeal and was told:

With reference to your recent correspondence, the contents of which have been duly noted.

We can confirm our clients have no cause of action against the driver, as they have only instructed us to recover the above balance from you as the registered keeper.

This file will therefore remain on hold until 06 October 2017 to allow time for payment, before further actions are commenced.

Please see below our payment methods we have enclosed for your convenience.

Debit Card/ Direct Debit: Call 01926 758101
Online:

Pay Wright Hassall via Payments Place
Make a payment to Wright Hassall via Payments Place
paymentsplace.com


Please quote our reference number with all payments.

Yours sincerely

Tim Hawker
Head of Debt Recovery Operations

I asked for advice on a similar thread (same location) and it was suggested that we use Johnersh's template to complain about the way in which WH's Formal Letter of Claim was worded. We fired one off and received the following reply (AGAIN from Tim Hawker, not complaints department):


I write further to your letter where you advised that you wished to make a complaint.

My understanding of your concerns is that you feel that our letter is threatening, misleading and an abuse of the process of debt recovery and refer specifically to the Law Society Warning Notice 11.06.2013. Further, you state that you feel that the balance outstanding is beyond a level which you believe would be recoverable in the smalls claim court. You also advise that the individual named as the Head of Debt Recovery Operations is not named on our website.

Wright Hassall LLP were instructed on this matter on August 2017. The two further letters sent to you informed you that we had been instructed by our Client ZZPS Limited to recover the balance of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that was issued against you by Premier Park Limited at the Parc Tawe North Retail Park (ANPR) - SWANSEA SA1 8AW. We understand that ZZPS Limited has previously written to you with regards to the PCN and gave you warning that the file would be passed to Wright Hassall LLP if payment was not made. The letter sent to you by Wright Hassall gave you the opportunity to pay the outstanding balance and provided you with all the details of the PCN.

We deny that the letter is misleading or threatening. Within the letter the following statement is made:

“Failure to make payment in full or contact us to discuss repayment of this debt may result in us recommending to our Client that we pass this matter over to our Litigation Department.”

This is not a threat, but a statement to make you aware of the action that we may be instructed to take if the matter remains unresolved.

The letter goes on to state that a County Court Judgment (CCJ) may negatively impact your credit rating and also details the various enforcement methods that are available where a CCJ is obtained. This is not intended to be threatening, as a litigant in person it is important that you are made aware of the consequences of a CCJ and the possible enforcement options, therefore we sought to convey these options to you within the letter.

The letter provides you with a telephone number should you wish to discuss the matter further. The letter is intended to give you the opportunity to narrow any issues prior to the file being considered for litigation, a last resort. A list of free independent advice organisations is also attached to the letter for your reference.

All parties involved in the recovery of your unpaid PCN/s – The CPO, ZZPS and ourselves - believe that our charges are fair and reasonable, and are in line with the British Parking Association guidelines, and have been tested at the Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis. Further, ZZPS are a member of the British Parking Association and follow the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

We have reviewed your comments made and the Law Society’s Warning Notice 11.06.2013 and are satisfied that the debt recovery process is not in contravention of this notice.

Turning to your point regarding Wright Hassall LLP employees not appearing on our website. Wright Hassall LLP does not detail all employee names and positions on the website. This is not a requirement and employees who send correspondence do so in accordance with their authority parameters and in line with our procedures.

It does appear that an increasing number of motorists receive misguided and often misleading advice from online forums who claim parking charges are ‘unfair’ and ‘illegal’. Should you chose to rely on this advice or use template letters sourced from the internet we will not respond further and you can consider this letter our final response on the matter. Further should you choose to rely on a template defence at court we will seek an immediate strike out.

We will place a further 14-day hold on this matter to allow you time to make payment in full or alternatively provide documentary evidence to substantiate non-payment of the PCN.
Please see below our payment methods for your convenience:

Online: link removed.

As the payment is now long overdue, unless you have any additional information you have not already brought to our attention, any further correspondence will be noted and filed, but we will not respond.

Yours sincerely
Tim Hawker
Head of Debt Recovery Operations

Considering they are just straight up denying all points made from the complaint, should we now just wait for the court papers to come through and get ready to formulate the defence?

Thanks again for your help. Not sure how they can just fob us off by saying they won’t reply if we use advice from forums??

Thanks All in advance.

PS.. using the NEWBIES thread I checked for any possible slip ups these companies may have made re POFA 2012, but they have complied with everything as I can see.

Redx

new protocols came in 2 weeks ago regarding LBC and MCOL etc

so as they dont seem to be following these protocols at the moment then yes , wait for a proper LBC issued under the new protocols, or an MCOL from Northampton, again it must follow the new protocols

sawahtee

Thanks for your reply, Redx!

Well, they have already sent out a formal letter of claim - prior to 2 weeks ago - so will this mean they wont be subject to the new rules?

Also where can I find these new protocols to find out if any of their subsequent letters comply?

Redx

bargepole and umkomaas have posted about the new protocols in the last fortnight or so, so check their posts and threads

I appreciate that their LBC may have followed old protocols but any MCOL must follow the new protocols seeing as any MCOL will be post oct 2017

Lamilad

sawahtee wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, Redx!

Well, they have already sent out a formal letter of claim - prior to 2 weeks ago - so will this mean they wont be subject to the new rules?

Also where can I find these new protocols to find out if any of their subsequent letters comply?

They are subject to the new protocols because they have issued a claim yet. A simple google search will take you to the new rules

Umkomaas

where can I find these new protocols to find out if any of their subsequent letters comply?

https://www.hilldickinson.com/insights/articles/new-pre-action-protocol-debt-claims

http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/latest-news/2017/april/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims/

Coupon-mad

PS.. using the NEWBIES thread I checked for any possible slip ups these companies may have made re POFA 2012, but they have complied with everything as I can see.

Say that again?! CEL issuing a fully compliant NTK, are you joking?