PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Help with Wright Hassall, Threads merged
alexsyl
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:13
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Hi all,

Apologies in advance - I'm new here and I know there are countless topics regarding these issues but I'm not sure what to do next.

In November 2015 I parked in the Abbey Walk car park in Selby (the Sainsburys one, in case anyone knows it). It was always free to park and is close to the town centre, as I was meeting a couple of friends for some food there. I arrived at around 7pm ish and left around 10.30.

I didn't think anything of it, so imagine my surprise when I received a letter from ZZPS dated 19th February 2016 saying I had an unpaid parking fine from the above. Turns out this car park is now managed by Vehicle Control Services on an ANPR sheme, which is not exactly well publicised (and by that I mean I couldnt see any signs up in the car park regarding said parking restrictions). I had never received any prior correspondence from VCS to advise that I had a parking fine or anything like that.

I wrote to both ZZPS and VCS, on the same day, disputing the charge as I had never received any prior notification and therefore could not appeal within the initial given period. I did originally research on here and a couple of other websites to help me gain some content for said letters, so said that I would not pay ZZPS as it's all speculative invoices, is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and there is significant lack of signage in the car park to show the parking restrictions.

I got the usual templated b*llocks letter back, refusing to answer any of my points that I raised, so I wrote to them again to deny the debt to ZZPS and refuse to deal with ZZPS, and demanded they respond fully to the issues and points that I raised in my initial letter, saying that if I didnt hear from them within 14 days then I'd consider the matter closed.

So, yesterday, I receive a letter in the post from Wright Hassall, dated 29th March (but only arrived yesterday - convenient?) - which I have scanned and attached. This looks different to the usual WH templated letters that I have seen people posting about on here and elsewhere - so I am completely unsure how to respond.

Obviously I want to completely stand my ground and have no intention of paying this - I'm just worried about it getting to the CCJ stage.

Is there anyone who could please provide me with some help on how to respond to this WH letter? I'm a bit of a newbie with these kinds of things so anything in laymans terms would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

This post has been edited by alexsyl: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 11:12
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:13
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
freddy1
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:19
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



ok , whats different?

we "may" suggest etc etc

hot air and wind
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandyman
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:20
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,323
Joined: 29 Jun 2013
Member No.: 63,179



This is a standard ZZPS-pretending-to-be-Wright Hassall debt collector letter.

You can either ignore it, or search the forum for a "Gan special" reply. If you do decide to reply, post your text up here for comment first.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:26
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Thanks guys - there appears to be so many letters though, I'm just not sure which ones to use!

Can anyone point me in the direction of a thread that contains a good template letter that I could use to reply to this with?

Sorry if this seems lazy or anything - I'm just completely new to this kind of thing and don't know where to start!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:29
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



They don't invite you to discuss it, only pay

You've already been for a ride on the WH merry-go-round so you know that they will ignore yet another letter

and demanded they respond fully to the issues and points that I raised in my initial letter, saying that if I didn't hear from them within 14 days then I'd consider the matter closed.

Could consider it closed and not bother to reply
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:30
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



Dear Right hastle ,

please can I refer you to Arkell v. Pressdram

love n kisses
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:32
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Thanks Gan - would you say the best course of action then would be to just ignore this?

I guess I'd rather write to them and demand a full response and basically calling them out on their BS, it would probably make me feel more comfortable, but I just don't know :S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:38
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



I suggest that you read about Arkell v Pressdram for a chuckle but don't send it

In the event of legal action, the letter would form part of the document trail

As far as the court will be concerned, Wright Hassall is a respectable firm of solicitors
It specialises in parking law and has been appointed by the British Parking Association to resolve several thousands of outstanding parking appeals

Telling it to F*** Off is not a good idea
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:49
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Ha, that is brilliant...

So how should I proceed with the letter I have got from WH then? I just find it all quite intimidating and such, so I guess I'd rather reply than not if there is a good template somewhere round here that I can use? But if you's suggest just ignoring it then I can do I guess... how many letters from WH do you normally get before they give up?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 09:03
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,438
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



It is meant to be intimidating, you are engaging and they aim to wear you down.

Either file and ignore or send them a..

"In accordance with my previous letter of the DD/YY, you have failed to validate any basis for the claim, therefore I consider the matter closed."


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 10:05
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Ok thanks. How about something like the following, does this sound ok?

Dear Wright Hassall,

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

In accordance with my previous correspondence to your client, ZZPS Limited, and their client, Vehicle Control Services, on both the 26th February 2016 and 22nd March 2016, you have failed to validate any basis of the claim. I raised numerous questions regarding the alleged parking contravention, none of which have been answered.

I also note that, following my previous letter, I had not received a response within the 14 day period that I had provided. As such, for both of these reasons, I now consider this matter closed.

For the record, I deny any debt to yourselves or ZZPS Limited, and therefore instruct you to immediately refer this matter back to the original client, Vehicle Control Services, and desist contacting me. Any further correspondence to me, aside from a confirmation that this matter has now been closed, will be deemed as harassment as reported using the appropriate channels.

Yours Faithfully,

Blah blah
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 10:46
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



will be deemed as harassment as reported using the appropriate channels noted but I will not reply

Unless you're prepared to carry out the threat and not only report but issue a claim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 10:57
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Ok no worries, thank you

Apart from that, does the rest of it read ok though?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandyman
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 10:59
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,323
Joined: 29 Jun 2013
Member No.: 63,179



Nah, no good at all.

If you are going to write at all:

I refer to your letter dated ??????, ref ???????.

You state that your client is ZZPS Limited. I require you to explain the basis of that company's claim against me and how it comes to believe it has any standing to make such a claim.

Please provide this explanation, with supporting documentation, within 7 days. Any other response (or lack of response) will be reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority as a breach under Chapter 11 of your Code of Practice.

I require you to treat this matter as a formal complaint and refer it to your Compliance Officer.


If it were me I would put this in writing (yes, on paper!) and send individual copies separately, and by name, to every person on this page who appears from their job title to hold a senior position:

https://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/our-people/people/

It is my belief that the debt collection arm of Wright Hassall (which is not staffed by legal professionals) has "gone rogue" in its eagerness for fees and commissions from the private parking scum. If this is brought to the attention of the senior real lawyers at the firm often enough and forcefully enough they might wake up to how their firm's name is being dragged through the mud by its association with parking scum and their scum debt collectors.

What would be really good would be if someone in receipt of such a WH letter, who happens to live in their locality (they are in Leamington), wrote to the senior staff stating that he will never consider using such a disreputable firm for conveyancing, probate or any other legal services at all. The potential loss of just one important customer on the legal side would hugely outweigh the pitiful revenue stream they must be getting from ZZPS and the parking scum.

Or just ignore them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:07
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



I'm reading the OP's account to mean that he's already sent a version of those questions

Wright Hassall has been reported to the SRA on numerous occasions for these letters
As far as the SRA are concerned they've done nothing wrong

As they're writing letters in their debt collector rather than solicitor capacity, a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman might be a better approach
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:18
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



Write hastle are NOT debt collectors , according to the BPA


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:37
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



What Gan said - I've already asked variants of questions with no response. I'll make some changes and send a letter to advise them, and if I dont receive a response within 14 days then I will consider the matter closed.

If they then respond, still not answering what I asked for, I'll then go down a more militant route with the SRA/Ombudsman etc...

I think that would seem a reasonable approach?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandyman
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:47
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,323
Joined: 29 Jun 2013
Member No.: 63,179



QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:07) *
I'm reading the OP's account to mean that he's already sent a version of those questions

Not to Right Hassle though. But he's the one who wants to write something, personally I'd ignore it.

QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:07) *
Wright Hassall has been reported to the SRA on numerous occasions for these letters
As far as the SRA are concerned they've done nothing wrong

I know, but constant dropping wears away a stone.

QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:07) *
As they're writing letters in their debt collector rather than solicitor capacity, a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman might be a better approach

The letters are from Wright Hassall LLP, that's a law firm, and they are trying to use their status as a law firm to intimidate people. Accordingly they should be held accountable as a law firm. I'm not aware that the Financial Ombudsman has any jurisdiction over debt collection activities for non-regulated debt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 13:24
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Made a few changes... how about this instead then?

Dear Wright Hassall,

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

In accordance with my previous correspondence to your client, ZZPS Limited, and their client, Vehicle Control Services, on both the 26th February 2016 and 22nd March 2016, you have failed to validate any basis of the claim. I raised numerous questions regarding the alleged parking contravention, none of which have been answered.

On your recent letter to me, you also state that your client is ZZPS Limited. I require you to explain the basis of that company's claim against me, and how it comes to believe it has any standing to make such a claim; a simple suggestion that ZZPS has this will be deemed unsatisfactory. I believe that if anyone has any alleged standing with me whatsoever, it would be Vehicle Control Services, which is not your client.

I also note that, following my previous letter on 22nd March 2016, I had not received a response within the 14 day period that I had provided. As such, for both of these reasons, I now consider this matter closed.

For the record, I deny any debt to yourselves or ZZPS Limited, and therefore instruct you to immediately refer this matter back to the original client, Vehicle Control Services, and desist contacting me. Any further correspondence to me will be noted but I will not reply, unless it provides full responses to my points raised, and a confirmation that this matter has now been closed.

Yours Faithfully,

Blah blah
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 08:35
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Hi again chaps,

So over the weekend I received a letter in the post from Wright Hassall. It's the bog standard template and answers none of my questions.

My worry is that the letter is titled "Letter Before Claim" - I know that people have said never to ignore these before, so I'm not sure how to approach it?

Any advice would be much appreciated - thank you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 21st September 2018 - 01:09
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.