GCTT & ZZPS Letters - Scotland

MrBrightside2020

Hi folks, 

The keeper received a ticket from Civil Enforcement Limited towards the back end of last year and promptly put this straight in the bin. 

The keeper knows there is no keeper liability in Scotland and that he has no moral or legal obligation to name the driver. As a result he had ignored around five letters from CEL and ZZPS.

Today the keeper received a further letter from GCTT (a subsidiary of ZZPS) threatening that the case will be passed to a solicitor unless he pays.

The keeper believes that GCTT are powerless to pursue court action. Can anyone confirm?

The keeper has also read that costs cannot be pursued for claims under £300 in Scotland, so he believes this is likely to be binned shortly. The amount due is £170.

Should the keeper continue to ignore?

Umkomaas

Can you tell us the full name of 'GCTT' please?

Debt collectors have no ability to sue on behalf of a third party, anywhere: they are not allowed to purchase outstanding PCNs from parking firms.

Redx

Yes the keeper can ignore debt collector letters , but the claimant CEL could try a claim by employing a solicitor and using the simple procedure system , even if the keeper wasn't the driver , never say never

Currently there is no POFA in Scotland to hold a keeper liable , so even better if they were not the driver , but never say never ! It could happen , some cases are being issued in Scotland, so assume that it is scare tactics for now

POFA will arrive in Scotland this summer , under the new CoP , but won't be retrospective

Coupon-mad

Let's see the letter from GCTT as we've not seen one from that subsidiary. Cover your personal ID of course.

MrBrightside2020

I'm at work just now but they are definitely a subsidiary of ZZPS - probably sending letters under a different name to try and get the keeper to pay up.

They can be seen under ZZPS on BPA, I think they have just changed their name to sound scarier. Bailiffs and 'enforcement agents' do not exist in Scotland.

Surely CEL would have also initiated court action on their own accord if they really wanted to pursue this? The letter says CEL will pursue legal action.

It does just sound like scare tactics, they will lose money pursuing a ticket valued at £170 also as costs cannot be recovered under Simple Procedure for claims valued at less than £300.

patient_dream

MrBrightside2020 said:

I'm at work just now but they are definitely a subsidiary of ZZPS - probably sending letters under a different name to try and get the keeper to pay up.

They can be seen under ZZPS on BPA, I think they have just changed their name to sound scarier. Bailiffs and 'enforcement agents' do not exist in Scotland.

Surely CEL would have also initiated court action on their own accord if they really wanted to pursue this? The letter says CEL will pursue legal action.

It does just sound like scare tactics, they will lose money pursuing a ticket valued at £170 also as costs cannot be recovered under Simple Procedure for claims valued at less than £300.

Here is the mastermind of the fake add-on.
https://parkmaven.com/news/gary-osner-zzps-interview

Amazing rubbish and a board member of the BPA, what do you expect ?

GCTT Certifcated Enforcement agents ....... BOOM BOOM .... not before court ZZPS

WAKEY WAKEY GARY before you turn into another Wonga

D_P_Dance

 The amount due is £170.

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £70 for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

MrBrightside2020

Quick update,

The keeper has just received another letter from GCTT (just another name for ZZPS) advising they are transferring the case to QDR Solicitors. However they wish to give the keeper one final chance to pay £170.

Why bother sending the keeper this when they have already had 'final warnings' from ZZPS and GCTT? They are obviously getting desperate?

I've done some research and I'm fairly confident QDR will just send another pointless letter threatening to pursue the keeper through court. 

In Scotland we do not have keeper liability so they would need the keeper to identify the driver (which they have no obligation to do) and for £170, they would not be awarded fees under Simple Procedure. They would simply lose money by even trying to pursue this.

The 'offence' apparantly took place at a doctors surgery car park on a weekend, so how on earth could they justify such an amount?

Should the keeper message ZZPS/GCTT to tell them kindly to get lost? Or should they continue to ignore?

Thanks

Umkomaas

Forum advice is consistent - ignore debt collector letters. 

MrBrightside2020

Umkomaas said:

Forum advice is consistent - ignore debt collector letters. 

They will continue to ignore then.

patient_dream

Transfering the case to QDR ....... that really is a joke and GCTT are just passing the buck because they know this is a complete waste of time.

This is musical chairs now. QDR are simply an offshoot of the disgraced Wright Hassall solicitors, yup that is their real name ??   ..... The BPA a while ago had a brain freeze and offered the appeals service to Wright Hassall and was named WHOPLA .... what a pigs ear that was .

It's Scotland ?   so we all wait with baited breath as to what rubbish QDR dream up
We would love to see the letter you receive from QDR