Hire van and CEL ...

Crumble_

Hello, brand new here please go easy. I have read some of the NEWBIES thread on here but I was in a hire van at the time and a lot are in their own cars.

Basically in a hired vehicle, in September 2016 the driver parked in retail park car park. For the past 12 years this has been free to anyones knowledge.

After 2.25 hours the driver drove off.
At the end of February 2017 2 letters were recieved -
1) CEL letter before action £140 with draft particulars not signed and 2) ZZPS letter owing £200. Again not signed.
2 hour limit on the car park .. .

The hirer rang the hire company explaining what has happened and they responded saying they had not received a fine letter for the vehicle as if they had they would have forwarded to the driver with a further £15 charge on from them for admin?

The hirer emailed CEL and ZZPS asking for photographic evidence of the van being on the car park, when the cameras were last calibrated etc. The driver had not seen any signs for the regulations of the car park. £100 excessive amount, a breakdown of how that is a reflective breach of contract / loss of business to them when its a free car park and asked if the van parking there had resulted in any cars being turned away. The hirer asked how the additional £40 fine had come about.

The hirer found out that the poles on which the cameras were situated on didnt have planning permission and that retrospective planning permission was only asked for in December 2016. I suggested I pay a £1 as a good will gesture.

ZZPS replied saying correct procedure had been followed and photographic evidence will be produced in the event of litigation. They wanted the money before further action was take.
The hirer replied outlining the fact the driver did not see any signs, it was dark and raining, free previously.

The hirer got another ZZPS letter on 6th April 2017 saying it would go to the solicitors.

Nothing came. Until yesterday.

Court claim form N1 and N9A/B. The hirer completed the acknowledgement and sent it back disagreeing with the claim. The hirer is seeing the local councillor next week as she has had hundreds of complaints.

Any advice would be great. Many thanks

Redx

see post #4 of that NEWBIES sticky thread about IGNORING the debt collectors like ZZPS, debt collectors are powerless, so DO NOT contact them again

edit your post to remove any hint of who did what

what happened on the day happened to THE DRIVER

what happened SINCE that day happened to the KEEPER

only use those terms in your posts

now that CEL have issued an MCOL, come back for more advice but read post #2 of that NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread about the precourt stage (LBC) and the court stage (MCOL)

see the recent CEL defences and adapt one for yourself and post it on here for critique

you should NEVER reveal who was driving with these cases

KeithP

R16kho wrote: »

Court claim form N1 and N9A/B. I've completed the acknowledgement and sent it back disagreeing with the claim.

So yesterday you received some forms.

Having already completed and returned the forms, you are now asking for guidance?
Have I got that right?

Why did you rush to return the forms before asking for help? Crazy!!

Did you file a Defence on the N9B form?
In other words, did you put anything at all in Box 3 on that form?

Umkomaas

Court claim form N1 and N9A/B. I've completed the acknowledgement and sent it back disagreeing with the claim.

Oh dear, I do hope that I'm reading this wrong! :doh:

Just a bit of advice @OP about all the gobbledygook punctuation in your posts.

Please switch off your 'Smart Punctuation' on your iPhone/iPad to avoid the littering of your posts with !!!!8820; and the like, as every apostrophe and some other punctuations convert to exclamation marks and numbers.

Go to 'General' > 'Keyboard' > 'Smart Punctuation' and flick the switch off.

Switching off seems to have no detrimental affect on any other use of the keyboard.

Crumble_

I have sent off the part asking for 28 days for a defence. I have acknowledged I have received the letter. I have not sent off a defence yet. I have had no further contact with ZZPS.

Redx

in that case I would fill in the AOS online as well, like the NEWBIES FAQ thread tells you to do

then I would start looking at other CEL defences and draft your own

most of your post is not relevant , certainly not the parts about curries and ZZPS

the crux of your post (and the important parts) are that CEL have issued an MCOL and its been acknowledged (and that it was a hire vehicle)

Crumble_

Is the lack of planning permission worth throwing in there too the defence letter?
Is it any different being a hirer of a car?

Sorry for throwing any background information in there ...

Redx

possibly , if you have proof , same applies for advertising consent for the signage , as they probably failed to get that too

of more importance is if in your dealings with them perhaps the drivers details were revealed ?

if they were, the defence cannot use POFA2012 to protect the keeper , plus its doubtful that they followed POFA2012 and obtained the hire docs etc from the hirer, so again all POFA2012 related and irrelevant if the driver revealed themselves

this is why we tell people not to blab about who was driving and NOT TO CONTACT the debt collectors, especially as they have no powers to cancel it or to amend it , only to collect the money IN FULL, and add their fees on at the same time (no win , no fee)

KeithP

As Redx said, just find another very recent CEL Defence and adjust it to fit your circumstances.

There are literally hundreds of CEL Defences on here written this year. There is one linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

CEL are probably the best people to come up against in court as it is extremely unlikely there will be a hearing. They will give up on seeing a strong Defence.

Does your forum username identify you or your vehicle?

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Crumble_

The driver of the vehicle has not been revealed, only saying I did not see any signs. I am allowed to be in the vehicle in some capacity and the letter was sent to me?