Wright Hassall claim letter re:TPS PCN Heritage Retail Park Crewe - ignored till now

[ian-d]

Missus parked in a private car park back in July,

received a number of 'Parking Charge Notice' letters from TPS (Total Parking Solutions) over the following few weeks,

 

then another company (cannot remember who they passed it to),

 

and now Wright Hassall Solictors who've sent me a 'Formal Letter of Claim' on the basis of a debt owed and 14 days to pay to avoid CCJ's, court judgements etc.

 

I had assumed (rightly or wrongly) that private parking tickets are still unenforceable in the majority of cases, and just to ignore. Should I at this point be concerned?

[dx100uk]

doesn't say will anywhere.

 

wasn't the right thing to ignore

but this far down the line might be better to keep that up

unless you send the one line denial letter we are currently advising BW/VCS/EXCEL customers to send.

 

but that's is not a letter before action .

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

it is a contractual matter and contract can be enforced.

 

The problem for most parking co's is that they arent in a position to offer you a contract or their signage doesnt create one so to answer your question properly we will need to know all about the event and what paperwork you received and when.

[Oddfellow]

Genius of Mr Wright and Mr Hassall to conspire to both get legal qualifications (one assumes) and go into business together!

[ian-d]

To be honest, I've always been advised to ignore the notices, so unless something has changed recently?

 

 

I've had two letters from TPS,

one dated 27/07/2016 for contravention date 22/07/2016 and

another sometime in August, but sadly I cannot find that copy right now.

TPS letter was a Parking Charge Notice.

 

 

I've then had two letters from Wright Hassall, dated 11/11/2016 and 28/11/2016 (the one attached).

The first mentions having been instructed by ZZPS Limited, acting on behalf of TOTAL PARKING SOLUTIONS Limited in connection with the recovery of a debt, requiring payment within 14 days otherwise they may recommend to their client passing this matter over to the litigation department, with a view to obtaining a CCJ.

The second letter, per above, is a formal letter of claim.

 

Is this generally how far these companies go, or has this got to the point that I need to respond?

[ericsbrother]

Right hassle are solicitors who are used by the parking co's to chase people and they do sue when instructed to.

We need to see the original notices and any ticket slapped on your vehicle to determine what liability may exist.

 

You will need to respond but before you do you had better think of a reason as to why the charge isnt due other than you have been advised by persons unknown to just ignore them.

 

We will need images of the entrance to the parking place from the public highway,

images of the signage and sight of the NTK to be able to tell you how to respond.

 

 

they have 6 years to take you to court so binning the paperwork of anything that is not done and dusted is never a good idea,

they often come back a year later and take people to court knowing that all the paperwork that shows they are in the wrong has been binned and hiope that people are too unawares to ask for it beofre they get to court

[dx100uk]

ignore went out the windows in 2012!!

[ian-d]

So what changed that allows privately operated parking firms to start taking legal action to recover the debt?

It use to be the case that action was very rare, and almost always thrown out.

Has that changed?

 

The original notice shows the car, front and back, the registration, all the right details, times etc, and I believe that the signage in place is correct; my missus just overstayed her welcome (and has before, but haven't had letters from a solicitor before).

 

On the basis that the parking company are right, should I just pay the debt to get rid of them?

At this stage, do they usually take action?

At what point would there be damage to my credit rating, or require attendance in court?

[Oddfellow]

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) happened, that's what changed! It outlawed the clampers, but they mutated and crawled back out of the primordial soup in this new guise!

 

Incidentally, it isn't a debt as such, it is compensation for breach of contract. The people who a PPC set on you to scare you into paying may be debt collectors, but they have no rights whatsoever in this scenario.

 

As some of the experienced guys have already said, there is usually some element of the strict procedure required by law that they have failed to comply with, and should be able to get you off. It may well involve an appearance in county court at some point down the line, but that is not something to be particularly scared of.

 

 

You may end up having to pay the original charge (if you lose), but it won't be much more than that. You only get a CCJ if you fail to pay a sum that they impose on you, and will most often happen if you don't turn up to the hearing and they get a judgment in default.

 

I'm sure the experts here would advise you if they believe you haven't got a chance. But they need to see copies of the NTK and all letters.

 

At the end of the day it's your decision, but everyone who pays up gives the PPCs a boost to their coffers, whereas defeating them in (or before) court may put a stop to their antics for everyone else.

[ian-d]

The regulars here no doubt see mention of these letters from Wright Hassall often, so I'm wondering if they usually follow through, or generally just go away and this is another one of them 'try to scare them into paying' notices?

 

At this stage I'm unsure what to do, but I'm not in a position to defend a case where an infringement happened, because it is correct, but the parking fines in my view are unjustifiable high.

 

Am I in a position where by I can wait a further period of time to see what is issued next, or would that be unwise?

 

I assume Wright Hassall would need to return to TPS for authorisation to proceed, at great expense to them both, which they cannot then recover from me if it goes to court, because as said above, the likelyhood is that I'd only have to pay the original invoice.

 

My business head says they act together to send out as many template letters as possible in the hope of hooking a few, which keeps their directors very happy!

[dx100uk]

theres that word fine again...

 

its not a fine its a speculative invoice

[ian-d]

Sorry, you can understand as a relative newbie that words such as fine, debt, claim, charge etc all seem like the same thing, when of course in offering suggestions, it matters a lot.

[dx100uk]

well that's what all these fleecing parking companies and DCA's want you to think

which is why so many mugs pay them without reading things carefully and understanding

exactly what the letters do and don't ACTUALLY say.

[ericsbrother]

it is all about contract law and not parking itself.

If you employed a builder and didnt pay him for the work done he would sue you for breach of contract ( promising to pay him for something)

 

but if you agreed to having a slate put back on your roof and he billed you for a new roof then there is a lot of room for argument over what exactly the contract was and whether it had been performed to in the correct manner.

 

That is what we are interested in, making the parking co either show that the contract actually exists or looking at all of the elements of performance.

 

To do this we need certain information and the sooner you help us with that the better becasue we want to make right hassle back down.

 

If you do nothing they will assume that you dont answer any letters at all and a court summons will go unchallenged as well so they get the money by default and never have to prove it was ever owed.

 

as you have gathered WH rely on your ignorance in the world of legal letter writing so they use words that you will read one way when it actually says somehting else.

 

However, even though it isnt a promise to sue you that doesnt mean you want to ignore them as the next letter will be a point of no return for both you and them

[ian-d]

There's not a lot else I can provide unfortunately.

 

 

Attached is the original TPS letter, which I guess you've seen countless times.

 

 

Assume the parking signage is correct, as I cannot get back there in the coming days unfortunately.

 

Question, do letters from Wright Hassall typically lead to pursuit of payment?

 

In 50% of cases, 10%, less? Gauging my odds versus stress!

[ericsbrother]

the NTK is not compliant with teh POFA to create a keeper liability, it is wrong on several points

 

You should write to Wright Hassal and tell them " there is no obligation to your client as they have failed to create a keeper liability under the POFA 2012. Any civil action will be vigourously defended at being vexatious."

 

If you dont respond they will sue you are they think you wont defend a claim

. My post above makes this clear

 

. I cannot give a percentage figure of how many people get sued because we do not know how many people actually respond but I can tell you that 85% of claims are successful becasue people dont defend them.

 

Send this one line letter and you are unlikely to join that particular club

 

. You will need to get piccies of the entrance to the car park and the signage so make an effort and you will save yourself a few hundred quid later.

[ian-d]

Thank you ericsbrother. Can you tell me in novice terms what the statement you recommend I send actually means? How have TPS fallen foul of the rules; and do I need to take photos of the entrance and signage for sending with the letter, or just as a personal record?

 

Also, what is NTK and POFA?

[honeybee13]

Thank you ericsbrother. Can you tell me in novice terms what the statement you recommend I send actually means? How have TPS fallen foul of the rules; and do I need to take photos of the entrance and signage for sending with the letter, or just as a personal record?

 

Also, what is NTK and POFA?

 

Hello there.

 

Here's a link to the forum stikky with the abbreviations that the guys use.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?168275-Posting-in-this-Forum-and-A-Z-of-Motoring-Terms

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

In short,

the detail is not important to anyone at this moment,

you are just letting them know that you arent burying your head in the sand.

 

If you really want to know then you should read the wording of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 schedule 4, particularly para 5, 6 8 and 9. para 9 is the most important.

 

 

The read the NTK you got and compare th two, bearing in mnd they must use exact phrases in places and they havent. That is not all though

[ian-d]

I sent what erics recommended and got the following letter in reply.

Any suggestions for what to do next,

or was this letter to be expected?

[ericsbrother]

they are saying that they are terribly upset that you havent paid them.

They are also upset that you have put them to the trouble of having to avoid telling the truth yet again and this has coat them the price of another stamp plus their time

 

this means that they are upset you dont believe them and they would still like you to pay them despite not having a lawful reason to demand monies.

 

 

As you have told them that they are wrong and you know it I doubt if they will relish a chance of wasting more money on this matter.

 

 

The bit about you owing ZZPS more than the original amount is utter cobblers and they know it.

[ian-d]

Ok thank you,

I assume I should just leave it at this point and hope to hear nothing more from them.

Wouldn't surprise me if I get another letter just before Christmas of course.

Glad I've wasted their time.