adrian_hassall
Fri, 4 Dec 2015 - 15:52
Hi
After abit of advice please.
I was a customer at the Charles Bradlaugh pub, Northampton back in August. Left my car in the car park overnight as I had been drinking. Returned the following day mid morning to find I had been given a PCN by Northamptonshire parking management for unauthorised parking at 08:32.
Went into the pub and questioned why I had received a ticket and they said they'd speak to the landlord.
About a month later I received a letter from NPM which I ignored and then another a couple of weeks after which I again ignored.
2 letters from ZPPS Ltd which again I've ignored but today I've now received a letter from Wright Hassall solicitors as a bl debit collection for what is now £190.
The wording states that failure to make payment or contact may result in the Litigation Department to obtain a CCJ.
I was having a bad day and so ended up ringing them explaining that because I was a paying customer in the pub I had been authorised to park and as such wouldn't be paying.
Not sure if that was maybe a mistake though.
Anyone able to give me some advice on what I should do with this?
Thanks
Adrian
doreen4161
Fri, 4 Dec 2015 - 19:06
It only says ' may take action'. I dont know if these do court, but only a court can impose a ccj. and thats after you loose and then refuse to pay.
Dont ignore real court papers , but i would ignore all else
Gan
Fri, 4 Dec 2015 - 21:35
This ZZPS / Wright Hassall letter is very familiar
As a variation on the usual response
Dear Sir
Ref ****
Further to my conversation that informed you that the vehicle was authorised to park and no payment will be made :
I am not obliged to justify my position.
Unless your client can produce a valid deed of assignment, it has no capacity to take the legal action that you have threatened.
My reasons are therefore none of your business.
Don't contact me about this again.
I will note your comments but do not guarantee a reply
Yours Faithfully
adrian_hassall
Sat, 5 Dec 2015 - 10:15
QUOTE (Gan @ Fri, 4 Dec 2015 - 21:35)
This ZZPS / Wright Hassall letter is very familiar
As a variation on the usual response
Dear Sir
Ref ****
Further to my conversation that informed you that the vehicle was authorised to park and no payment will be made :
I am not obliged to justify my position.
Unless your client can produce a valid deed of assignment, it has no capacity to take the legal action that you have threatened.
My reasons are therefore none of your business.
Don't contact me about this again.
I will note your comments but do not guarantee a reply
Yours Faithfully
Ok so I should follow up my phone call with a letter as above? Anything after should I continue to ignore then?
Gan
Sat, 5 Dec 2015 - 10:52
That's the idea
WH will continue to demand payment and it's not worth getting into a debate with them.
They would continue to give evasive responses for at least three rounds of correspondence before you can back them into the corner and they have to admit that ZZPS can't take legal action.
The letter I've suggested is as close to "Get Stuffed" as you can send and not look unreasonable.
nosferatu1001
Sun, 6 Dec 2015 - 00:47
When you send it, send first class, with proof of postage. Not recorded, and don't forget the proof - not your receipt but a little certificate that states it was posted. These you keep.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.