CCJ for a private firm parking ticket- incidental find. All correspondence went to old address.

Coupon-mad

ZZPS are a third party debt collector (who failed to collect anything) and they are nothing to do with the claim.

Herbie2312

Umkomaas said:

Herbie2312 said:

Umkomaas said:

It's difficult to read the screenshots, but the claimant WS shows the claimant as Globe Protection Ltd T/A IG Security, but your WS shows the claimant as (debt collector) ZZPS - can't be them?

Yes I know , for some reason the screenshots are not in order! Sorry! Apparently zzps got taken over by globe or something to that effect. 

No connection whatsoever, as far as I can ascertain:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07554967

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07846404

I recall some one along the way explaining this to me as to why 2 named companies but I cannot recall what the explanation was. 

Herbie2312

Coupon-mad said:

ZZPS are a third party debt collector (who failed to collect anything) and they are nothing to do with the claim.

The court gave details of ZZPS to us hence why they are mentioned in my witness statement. 

Coupon-mad

In what way did the court mention a completely separate (non-Claimant) debt collector, this makes no sense?  What did the court say or provide?

Herbie2312

Coupon-mad said:

In what way did the court mention a completely separate (non-Claimant) debt collector, this makes no sense?  What did the court say or provide?

I'm not sure coupon but I'll mention this to my solicitor. Do you feel this is relevant to the potential outcome of my case?

Coupon-mad

No, we reckon it's a misunderstanding, probably by the solicitor you didn't need...!   Maybe they muddled up ZZPS with DCBL (a roboclaim solicitor).

ZZPS do not feature in any parking firm claim (ever).  They are just a hanger-on parasite firm who send (in some cases) some letters waaaaay before any court claim, and their involvement is the excuse for the added £60 in fake costs, that the parking firm never paid them because ZZPS and their ilk ''work'' on  a no-win-no-fee basis and are not a legal firm.  

It's a red herring and wrong for your WS to show the Claimant as ZZPS (or DCBL for that matter). The Claimant is neither.

Herbie2312

Coupon-mad said:

No, we reckon it's a misunderstanding, probably by the solicitor you didn't need...!   Maybe they muddled up ZZPS with DCBL (a roboclaim solicitor).

ZZPS do not feature in any parking firm claim (ever).  They are just a hanger-on parasite firm who send (in some cases) some letters waaaaay before any court claim, and their involvement is the excuse for the added £60 in fake costs, that the parking firm never paid them because ZZPS and their ilk ''work'' on  a no-win-no-fee basis and are not a legal firm.  

It's a red herring and wrong for your WS to show the Claimant as ZZPS (or DCBL for that matter). The Claimant is neither.

Thank you coupon for spotting this. I have meeting with my solicitor tomorrow and will raise this. 

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas said:

It's difficult to read the screenshots, but the claimant WS shows the claimant as Globe Protection Ltd T/A IG Security, but your WS shows the claimant as (debt collector) ZZPS - can't be them?

@Umkomaas spotted it!

henrik777

Your witness statement doesn't do anything other than say i didn't get it it's unfair.

Theirs says not much more than, we're the good guys we did everything properly the applicant is a chancer.


The argument under cpr 13.2 should be, they should have traced you as the delay and zero response so they had reason to believe you weren't there anymore. Plus the trade COP says they should trace you after such a delay.

Where is this argued ?

Backed up with i have a good prospect of defending etc

I don't see where this is ?

Herbie2312

henrik777 said:

Your witness statement doesn't do anything other than say i didn't get it it's unfair.

Theirs says not much more than, we're the good guys we did everything properly the applicant is a chancer.


The argument under cpr 13.2 should be, they should have traced you as the delay and zero response so they had reason to believe you weren't there anymore. Plus the trade COP says they should trace you after such a delay.

Where is this argued ?

Backed up with i have a good prospect of defending etc

I don't see where this is ?

Hi henrik
Shall I add to my witness statement and mention these above points which I fully agree with? I have a meeting with my solicitor tomorrow so will raise this. 
Also what is trade COP ?
Thank you Henrik. I'm not admitting defeat I will stay up all day night till the 19th if I have to to ensure the best case is put forward on the hearing day. It is a telephone hearing btw.