Formal Letter of Claim from QDR Solicitors instructed by ZZPS on behalf of SABA

KeithP

D_P_Dance said:

Wonder why they have included middle "e" in the "J"  -  as they are a professional outfit etc.

It is the preferred spelling in International Agreements.  

International Agreements??

Why do you mention that?

Were_Doomed

Both are acceptable spellings.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/judgement

1505grandad

"Both are acceptable spellings.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/judgement"

As per the above link:-

"Oxford Collocations Dictionary

​(usually judgment) [countable, uncountable] the decision of a court or a judge

a judgment from the European Court of Justice

The judgment will be given tomorrow.

The court has yet to pass judgment (= say what its decision is) in this case."

If "internationality" is involved I believe defen(s)e is a popular USA spelling -  but on this forum it is always advised to alter to the "(c)" UK spelling. I have never noticed "internationality" ever mentioned for this.

nosferatu1001

Op - ask that firm of solicitors why they are lying to a consumer 

they know they cannot issue a ccj. It's impossible for them to do so. They can raise a claim. But it's not their gift to lay down a judgement 

you will accept a grovelling apology for this blatant lie, before you complain to the sra. 

MrReddy

Hope all are doing well and keeping safe.
So I finally received a response for my email challenging the £82 excess and few other points (Thanks to @Coupon-mad and others). What are my next actions, Please? 
Note: I went back to the station and took pictures and videos. It does seem like "Saba Car Park 2" is not covered by Station bylaws. The sign with car park conditions says on behalf of landowner ('Owner'), whereas the other carpark (Leighton Buzzard North) says "Saba is an authorised person for purposes of the applicable byelaws".

Umkomaas

Why not ask them whether the alleged debts have been formally assigned to ZZPS by Saba, if so, please let you have a copy of the Deed of Assignment. 

If not, will they please explain what contractual arrangement does ZZPS believe exists between them and you. 

Coupon-mad

That picture at the end clearly mentioned that SABA are acting for a Train Operator under byelaws. 

This is a long thread, but were these penalty charges or parking charges?

You do know not to pay this, we hope.  They are havig a laugh that 3 x scam PCNs is almost £550.  These firms need to go.

MrReddy

Coupon-mad said:

That picture at the end clearly mentioned that SABA are acting for a Train Operator under byelaws. 

The second image is of Leighton Buzzard "North" carpark which is opposite to the one I had parked comes under bylaws.
Leighton Buzzard has 3 Car parks Please see below

I had parked in Car park C which is privately owned and not covered by Byelaws. I didn't know Car Park A was also under Saba as it used to get full by the time I arrived at the station at 7:30 am. I only ever considered Car park B and C as Saba carparks as there are only 2 pins on the app and both on the right-hand side.
If you look at the SABA car parking app you will only find 2 Parking pins.

The First Pin says its "WMT Leighton Buzzard station car park, however, non of the physical signs at the carpark say "WMT" on them.

The Second pin says "Saba Car park 2" (the full name is not displayed) and apparently, this one is the privately owned one.

Since there is another car park further away from where I parked, I selected the first pin and paid for it. 
The Whole confusion is due to the misrepresentation of the car parks on the app, in that one of the locations is completely missing (apparently both Car park A and B are to be considered as one). 
I am not sure how the laws interpret car park fines based on "Wrong signage on the App", and inaccuracies and des caprices when compared to the physical locations. I can tell you that I am not the only one who got confused while paying on the app for this location. There are some posts by others on this very forum.

QDR said that they will put my file on hold for 14 days to allow me to make a payment or respond to the letter before action. Should I respond to the Letter before action or should I wait for letter from CCJ? Kindly advice.
Thanks and Merry Christmas/Happy New Year.

beamerguy

A very confusing situation and it's doubtful QDR will have an idea.  These people are just robo claimers and lack the facts.

I have not gone back through this thread, did they add the fake £60 to their claim

MrReddy

beamerguy said:

did they add the fake £60 to their claim

They added £82 Per claim for 3 tickets.