Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good evening DX100   Here is a draft of my response to the court order.  I would be obliged if you could review it and avise me if I am on the right track.   Defendant Statement of Position in Response to the Order of the Sheriff   The defendant suffered Severe Depression illness almost 12 months prior to the closer of the Bank account. HBOS was made aware of the defendant illness.  A Medical Certificate dated 15 Sept 2017 was handed over to the bank as a proof. (A copy of the report will be submitted exclusively to the court review) The defendant, with the support of her ex-partner, sought a resolution from the OC regarding the escalation of her OD account, which it was mostly formed of extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. HBOS agreed to reduce the outstand OD sum to £XXX and closed the account. The defendant is confident that her ex-partner has settled the agreed sum with OC, but not absolutely certain, considering her health state at that time. She has been actively trying to reach for her ex-partner for documented evidence, but the fact that, we believe, he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad and communication has been, to put it politely, very difficult due to the nature of his deployment. As the court is aware, the defendant has been trying to retrieve the data of her dealing with/from OC which it should reflect history of the above.  The defendant has already written twice to HBOS, as well as visiting her bank branch, on 01 March 2021, in person demanding the requested data.  HBOS promised to send the data to her as soon as they can. In addition to the above reasoning and contend, the defendant refute the claimants claim is owed or payable.  Due to punitive and extortionate fees the facility became untenable. Any alleged balance  claimed will consist totally of default penalties, punitive charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety and any alleged balance was due to punitive and extortionate charges . It is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-               a.    Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and Conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.               b.    Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.               c.    Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and justify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.               d.    Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.               e.    Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.     10.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Same thing. The fact that you declared £4.99 means that is the extent of any reasonable foreseeably consequence. Just go for that small amount. If they cause any problems then you can have a laugh when they spend many times more than what you're claiming in order to resist you. In future, when you contract with somebody – you need to understand that effectively it is an exchange of the reasonable expectations which you create in each other by your agreement.  
    • Current situation: contacted myhermes website's robot talk about the parcel and waiting for their email response. Thanks @BankFodder   I understand that if I were going to pursue under contract law, £4.99 would be the amount that I am entitled for compensate. How about if I were going to pursue this matter under tort - negligence? Would this allow me to pursue them according the true value of the items?
    • Hi UncleB, thanks for responding. I did call them back and it appears to be hit & miss with Devitt and dependent upon which Customer service agent you get.   Spoke with a very pleasant lady and told her that I, like them recorded all calls and gave date time of call and specific time at which a green card was stipulated in order for me to take out the policy.   *Two days later a hard copy of the green card landed on my doorstep. *Free of charge too.
    • Have you received a Parking Ticket? - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group   please complete the above then we'll be best placed to advise further but the bottom line is no and don't ever appeal.    
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 25 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

Old 2016 PCN - Sussex Security Solutions/ZZPS/Wright Hassall


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1316 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

dear all

 

I have read this thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440374-Capital2coast-PCN-Lewes-Clamform-received&p=5045522#post5045522

 

with interest as I am still lumbering on with so called debts from Sussex Security Solutions Ltd who issued PCN at Eastgate Wharf, Lewes in August 2016.

Sussex Security Solutions Ltd being owned by the same dodgy dealer as One Parking Ltd (trading as Capital 2 Coast).

 

Having appealed as standard to SSS I heard absolutely nothing, not even a letter to confirm my appeal had not been agreed.

 

Then followed debt recovery letter from DRP in November 2016.

 

Silence until June 2017 when I received a letter from the notorious ZZPS LTD and finally in July a letter from Wright Hassall solicitors acting on behalf of ZZPS acting on behalf of SSS!!

 

I am just penning a letter to Wright Hassall as I am getting to the point of being tired and angry that I keep getting harassed by every parking conman/woman in the land.

 

I didn't even park (as such) on the so called private land

I wasn't trying to get away with free parking whilst I shopped.

 

Merely picked up my daughter who was waiting on the pavement at that spot

(it looked a safe place to collect stop and let her in the car rather than on the high street!!)

 

I guess the reason for my rant/post is just to check there is someone out there who is still holding up the flag by not paying up.

..It feels a lonely battle and quite intimidating at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi brie58 and Welcome to CAG

 

I have moved your thread to the appropriate forum...Private Land Parking Enforcement.....please continue to post here to your thread.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are at this stage

its best to simply ignore them

and not send silly letter tennis.

ZZPS and wright hassle are totally powerless and are not BAILIFFS

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know that, but it is extremely intimidating keep receiving them and actually makes me cross that they are allowed to behave in such a manner!

 

 

I keep reminding myself that I did appeal to SSS and received no response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's how they work sadly

exactly the same as powerless DCA's chasing supposed consumer debt sold to them for pennies yeards ago on a bucket list.

 

 

best to simply ignore

none of them have any legal powers whatsoever.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the company doesnt exist now, it was wound up so you cant pay them.

 

Any payment wont setttle a genuine debt so you would still owe it in the eyes of the law.

 

As it isnt a genuine debt you ignore them, they have no powers, the solicitors are acting as debt collectors so have the same powers as your dog.

 

Yes, I know that, but it is extremely intimidating keep receiving them and actually makes me cross that they are allowed to behave in such a manner!

 

I keep reminding myself that I did appeal to SSS and received no response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again

 

I posted way back in July 2015 regarding a PCN I received on 21 June 2015 when parked with a blue badge in double yellow lines on Eastgate Wharf in Lewes.

 

Everyone was so helpful and I thought as I had heard nothing from March 2016 to June 2017 it was over but in June received 2 x letters from ZZPS with debt collection notice and then a notice of intended legal collections.

 

This was closely followed by 2 x letters from Wright Hassell the latter being received today being a 'Formal Letter of Claim'.

 

Would you be able to advise me that to do now?

 

If you need a synopsis of the saga from June 2015 to now am happy to.

 

Had some great support before from you all so would be so grateful again.

 

Thank you

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got one today, seems it is an admin week.

 

To be honest it is starting to wear me down, I come home from work anxious that another letter will be waiting.

 

My trail of events is exactly the same, same companies, I assume SSS sold the data to ZZPS this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

- I know how you feel

- I heard nothing for a long time and now it has reared it's ugly head again and it is stressful.

Was your PCN issued at the same location?

Link to post
Share on other sites

as with the other people that have got these this week

READ THE LETTER PROPERLY.

 

doesn't say WILL ANYWHERE..

 

we anticipate to be instructed...

 

so my dog is anticipating me to tell it to sit..

if I DO

and if he DOES

are very debateable.

 

willy waving ignore

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dx100uk, it's fine quoting quotes and talking about waving male parts but I still fell unhinged by these letters.

 

There must be some reason why the PCNs have reared their ugly heads again after a long silence and what lies beneath it all.

 

I am not stupid, I can see the difference between might and will but the bottom line is that it is intimidating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ericsbrother. Been looking into SSS, where did you find that they had been wound up?

 

Also, being a bit of a newbie, how did zzps get invited to the party with their mate Wright Hassall?

Link to post
Share on other sites

what lies beneath it all is a fleecing exercise on 2000's of people with the same issue as you.

 

only the SSS can issue a court claim and they have never done that.

 

all that's happened is the portfolio has been bunged into someone else's theat-o-gram pc.

 

and if you look carefully you'll see its the same lot at the same address using a dif letterhead

 

it is not a letter of claim.

 

does not say will. which a lettr before claim must.

 

read the forum rather than blindly panicking.

 

a dca is NOT A BAILIFF

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

same address! diff letterhead in the same printer

trying to spook you

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not blind or panicking so please have a bit of respect. Trouble with the forum is it is full of posts from folk chucking out jargon and sarcasism.

 

I posted on this forum because whether it is real or not the threats are intimidating and I wanted some support/advice to reassure myself.

 

So, in conclusion can you confirm that the general advise is to ignore a letter from the Hassalling WH titled FORMAL LETTER OF CLAIM.

 

Yes, it is full of if, buts and maybes but I don't have the ZZPS letters to hand to compare addresses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posts moved to your own thread

Please continue to post here

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The info upon zzps and wh is already within like threads

 

That is not a letter before claim

Its a spoof to panic

They don't own the debt

Neither wh nor their client zzps

 

Only the originator SSS can

And they have never done so

And if EB says they now don't exist

I'd rule that out too then...

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No sweat

 

Enjoy the sun

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...