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: 113
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 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:13
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 11:01
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



No problem, will do

Thanks for your help
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Wed, 27 Apr 2016 - 16:32
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 409
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Been in the car park today and taken photo of signs.
The first paragraph is-
"Any vehicle/driver remaining in the car park 10 minutes after entry is subject to and agrees in full to the Terms and Conditions. The maximum stay period is calculated from the time the vehicle enters the car park to the time it exits”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandyman
post Thu, 28 Apr 2016 - 07:06
Post #43


Member


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



Going back to the "Formal Letter Before Claim", it is no such thing. Read it carefully, and note that nowhere does it state who their client is. This is because it's still ZZPS, and they know perfectly well that ZZPS cannot and will not bring a claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Thu, 28 Apr 2016 - 07:41
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Dave, any chance you could post a picture of the signage please? Also, are they really obvious? Bearing in mind when the alleged contravention occurred, it was November, on an evening, and everywhere was dark...

Have had no response as yet from VCS when I requested a copy of the original PCN, so will wait to hear from them until after the bank holiday weekend and then look at this again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 28 Apr 2016 - 08:50
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,612
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Indeed, if there is no lighting on the signs, they will struggle to claim they are visible
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 07:02
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 409
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



I was at my daughters last few days close to Selby. I looked around the car park and to my recollection the signs were on posts but no lights over the signs. I`ll post up a photo of the sign later today.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 07:28
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



No worries, thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 19:04
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 409
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Photo of sign on a post. Been trying to post through tinypic, so hope it works. Can be seen during daylight.


Just to add, my daughter said she was aware of quiet a few people who have had these PCN on a evening. Some been to the restaurants in the Main Street.

This post has been edited by Dave65: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 18:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandyman
post Sat, 30 Apr 2016 - 08:26
Post #49


Member


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



Bit easier to read like this. Notice where the £100 charge is specified? No? That's because it's buried in the small print right at the bottom. Clear failure of one of the Beavis tests.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Sat, 30 Apr 2016 - 09:40
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 409
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Well spotted dandyman, should the discounted rate be stipulated also if paid within 14 days?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 1 May 2016 - 12:46
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,433
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Not necesarily, no.


--------------------
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, 3 May 2016 - 07:37
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



So that sign does not stack up to BPA Legislation then, is that right?

Also notice that the signs do not anywhere mention use of ANPR cameras or what they are going to be used for - that will go in my favour too right?

Also, thank you for adding Dave - much appreciated
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DBC
post Tue, 3 May 2016 - 07:43
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,766
Joined: 7 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,505



VCS are not a BPA member . Anyway there is no such thing as "legislation" just a set of rules that have no basis in law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Tue, 3 May 2016 - 07:44
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 409
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



The camera icon does have ANPR on it unfortunately.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 3 May 2016 - 09:20
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,433
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (DBC @ Tue, 3 May 2016 - 08:43) *
VCS are not a BPA member . Anyway there is no such thing as "legislation" just a set of rules that have no basis in law.

The Supreme court decided they (the Codes of Practice) were 'effectively binding'.....


--------------------
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, 3 May 2016 - 09:29
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Sorry, I'm slightly confused now - bit of a newbie when it comes to this kind of thing.

The way I see it now, is that, as the £100 fee is in small print, this doesn't meet the required standards of a parking sign. Is that correct? There is also no mention of what the ANPR is going to be used for, which I believe is also a requirement? Can someone please clarify for me?

Also - more than 10 days have now passed since I wrote to VCS and asked them to re-issue a copy of the original PCN which I never received. I have not heard back from them, or heard any more from Wright Hassall to chase me up (last letter from them was to confirm this was on hold pending their client) - do I basically just wait to hear back now and hope they don't, or shall I write again to chase them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandyman
post Tue, 3 May 2016 - 11:00
Post #57


Member


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



QUOTE (alexsyl @ Tue, 3 May 2016 - 09:29) *
The way I see it now, is that, as the £100 fee is in small print, this doesn't meet the required standards of a parking sign. Is that correct?

No. What it means is that it doesn't meet the standards for creating a binding contract. It's well-established that a clause seriously to the detriment of one party must be prominent, and the Supreme Court in Beavis made quite a play about the prominence of the signs, including the £85 charge. These VCS signs don't even begin to stack up (as they know perfectly well, because their sister company once suffered a high-profile defeat on rubbish signage when the judge actually went to the car park to have a look for herself).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 3 May 2016 - 11:11
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Excellent! Just what I like to hear! Thank you dandyman!

Anyone got any ideas on what I should do with regards to either waiting or replying any further?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Fri, 6 May 2016 - 10:41
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Hi chaps

Its now been over 2 weeks and still no response from VCS regarding my request for a copy of the original PCN.

Shall I chase them for this? Or wait for a response? Or write back and say "as you have not met my deadline I now consider this matter closed etc"?

Any advice appreciated - thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Fri, 6 May 2016 - 11:00
Post #60


Member


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



Wait for the next letter from ZZPS/WH and reply that until you receive a copy of the original PCN that you've requested from their client, there's nothing to discuss.

Suggest that they remind their client that you're waiting
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
5 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: alexsyl

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 20th September 2018 - 11:45
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.