Letter from QDR for Premier Park ticket in 2015

greetingsfrommike

Hi all,
We have received a letter from QDR Solicitors claiming £208 for a ticket issued in June 2015 for not displaying parking permit in the private car park (permit fell on floor). Unfortunately we followed old advice and ignored the initial notices.A quick summary of the next few years is below:

6th Sep 2015 - Letter from DRP - £150
14th Sep 2015 - Letter from DRP - £150
28th Sep 2015 - Letter from DRP - £120
29th Oct 2015 - Letter from Zenith - £99.99
---Nothing for 2 years---
20th Nov 2017 - Letter from ZZPS - £172
All of which we have not responded to.

The latest letter from QRD Solicitors arrived last week (Dated 8th but arrived on the 12th Dec):

We have been instructed by ZZPS Limited who are acting on behalf of Premier Park Ltd in connection with the recovery of the debt, which has been incurred following the failure to repay the Parking Charge Notice, and we require you to make payment in full within the next 14 days.

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 may mean they will look to obtain a County Court Judgement (CCJ). The possible impacts of having a CCJ registered against you are:
-Negatively impact your credit rating
-prevent future lending
-affect current employment or future prospects of employment
-enables enforcement action to commence, such as obtaining an Attachment of Earnings, placing a Charge on your property or applying for a Warrant of Execution (instructing a bayliff).

Then followed phone number, ways to pay and a sign off etc...

Do we need to respond to this? Is it a matter of sending a complaint and contacting trading standards as I have read in other threads?
I'm going to dive in and read as many similar threads as I can find, but any help would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Mike

Redx

ZZPS cannot take anyone to court like this, only Premier Park

who does the letter say to pay ?

if its DRP or ZZPS, ignore it

if its an actual LBC then check if it conforms to the new PaP dated 01 oct 2017 and rebut it using the daniel san rebuttal, adapted as necessary

see Post #2 of the NEWBIES THREAD for LBC and MCOL advice, see Post #4 FOR IGNORING DEBT COLLECTOR LETTERS like from ZZPS

chances are its a debt collector from ZZPS on QDR letter headed notepaper

nosferatu1001

It’s a debt collectors letter

Edit your post, don’t ID the driver.

greetingsfrommike

Thanks for the quick responses - post edited.

Regarding payment, it just says:
Please call us on 01926 758736 to make a payment by our Automated Card Payment System... I googled the number and it seems to be QDR.

... or alternatively please send a cheque to the above address, quoting our reference number The only address above is the car park location - QDR's Olympus Ave Warwickshire address is in the footer.

Thanks again...

pappa_golf

greetingsfrommike wrote: »

Thanks for the quick responses - post edited.

Regarding payment, it just says:
Please call us on 01926 758736 to make a payment by our Automated Card Payment System... I googled the number and it seems to be QDR.

... or alternatively please send a cheque to the above address, quoting our reference number The only address above is the car park location - QDR's Olympus Ave Warwickshire address is in the footer.

Thanks again...

Please call us on 01926 758736 to make a payment by our Automated Card Payment System


"press 1 to pay parking charge
please hold the line while we transfer you
hell0 zzps , !!!!!!!! I meant QDR , can I help you"

greetingsfrommike

Thanks everyone.

So is this a LBCCC? Do I need to reply as suggested by Coupon-mad in the "Letter from QDR solicitors - CEL PCN - NHS" thread?

KeithP

greetingsfrommike wrote: »

Thanks everyone.

So is this a LBCCC? Do I need to reply as suggested by Coupon-mad in the "Letter from QDR solicitors - CEL PCN - NHS" thread?

Post #3 has your answer.

Umkomaas

If you do a forum search (how to - detailed below) using the search term ‘Johnersh cathartic’, you will see a number of posts dealing with a response to the QDR letter (and Wright Hassle letter, both the same company). Use the information from those posts/threads.

Use the Forum Jump button (one near the top and one near bottom of this page) to get back to the forum thread list. Just above the threads, on the right, is a heading along a line, next to forum tools, called 'Search this Forum'. Put your key word(s) in and change the default search from 'Show Threads' to 'Show Posts'.

So is this a LBCCC?

There’s no special formula for us to say specifically yes or no. There is no standard template for a LBC/LBA/LBCCC, although real ones should now comply fully with the new PaP.

Solicitors acting for PPCs produce types of hybrids to confuse/intimidate which possibly contain some elements of PaP, sufficient to argue it is a LBC if they need to, or vague enough to argue that it wasn’t a real LBC.

As with all of this vague stuff, it is incumbent on the keeper to do their own research, including forum advice/opinion, and make their own decision on their next move.

greetingsfrommike

Thank you so much - I'll continue looking using your search tips...

greetingsfrommike

I'm seeing differences in forms of contact - some threads are responding via post, others using email and explicitly saying DO NOT send letters.

Is this a difference based on who you are contacting? Solicitor/client/debt collector. Or is it that easier to show correspondence trail?

Umkomaas

There’s no hard and fast rules, but as a rule of thumb, if the receiving organisation accepts emails/electronic communication, use it. Take screenshots of any communication made via a portal (where you might not be later able to retrieve what was written).

Use letters where the above doesn’t apply, but always get a free Certificate of Posting from your PO counter. Never send ‘Signed For’ (aka Recorded/Registered).

Sometimes a letter is better if it’s an extremely formal response. But views here will vary - so don’t necessarily look for total unanimity.