PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

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: 145
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
10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10  
Start new topic
Replies (180 - 192)
Advertisement
post Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:13
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 11:01
Post #181


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The use of the word "grateful" grates a little with parking companies.

I would therefore be grateful demand if you can get back to me at your earliest convenience within 7 days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:17
Post #182


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,885
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Agree no "grateful" to these cretins.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:19
Post #183


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Many Thanks - amended accordingly and will post off today.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:25
Post #184


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,885
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



1st class with proof of postage from PO free.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:35
Post #185


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Always smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 16:37
Post #186


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



So I've got home from work tonight to find this letter from BWL. Is this basically going to be a "I don't have to entertain you by phone so Bog off and communicate with me in writing" response?

Thanks in advance

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 17:32
Post #187


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You've got the idea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 18:44
Post #188


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Dear Bilal

Ref ****

I have received your letter dated **** requesting a telephone call
That will not happen

Your client's actions regarding this matter are already the subject of an investigation by the Information Commissioners Office
I strongly suggest that you seek its instructions before you contact me again

For the avoidance of doubt, I deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services and regard these continuing demands as harassment
I will not reply to any further correspondence
Any telephone calls will be immediately disconnected and reported as malicious communications

In the meanwhile, I will pass a copy of your letter to the ICO as evidence of your client's continued misbehaviour

Yours Sincerely





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 11:56
Post #189


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Thanks for the replies, I've actually received another letter from BWL this morning, copy below.

I didn't realise they were entitled to withhold some of the info they hold on me, or is this BS to try and make me go away?

Any advice appreciated...

Many thanks

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 07:45
Post #190


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, that is correct - anything that is ACTUALLY legally privileged is just that, private and exempt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 11:21
Post #191


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Ah ok. I had assumed that if I asked for it they would have still been obliged to provide it - especially if it was something like the original PCN for example.

Do I therefore ignore this letter and just respond with Redivi's letter above saying I wont entertain a phone call, and assume that further correspondence will be back with VCS?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 11:22
Post #192


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



the original PCN cannot possibly be legally privilieged, by definition

Only communications between the PPC and their sols would be.

Send exactly the letter Redivi penned. No need to comment on the SAR letter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alexsyl
post Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 15:43
Post #193


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,633



Thank you. Sending that today.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 09:12
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here