2*CEL PCNs - Royal Oldham Hospital - now Emails from ZZPS

[johnhn]

Oh I agree, as long as everyone is equally accountable to law and doesn't rely on the fact they aren't to completely ruin my life up for a few extra quid.

 

However, here I am, and I don't seem to be going further towards a position of safety because financial interests other/bigger than mine dictate that I don't and the people responsible for implementing law (or basic commonly decency) to protect little man cant be bothered So yes, you and I are morally right, but what do I do now?

[dx100uk]

nothing for you to do.

 

ignore until/unless you get a letter of claim or a claimform.

 

CEL are easily defeated if you do.

[johnhn]

Ok, thanks dx. And sorry. My frustration wasn't aimed at you.

[dx100uk]

just typing on a screen doesn't bother me

 

dx

[johnhn]

Well that's rare enough these days

[ericsbrother]

still another threatogram,

CEL are crooks and will make up any amount to get past the £600 mark so they can get a bailiff to enforce if they win by a walkover.

However, they always lose at court on these issues because their costs are just made up and easily challenged

so the worst that you will get is to be told to pay the original £100 for each event.

 

The whole point of sending you this letter is to make to wet yourself and pay up without asking why it has gone up to £600

 

Note that their solicitor, Paul Rice is also a solicitor at Wright Hassall, that well known company of rated only slightly more competent that Gladstones.

Perhaps CEL are too toxic for his employers so he is moonlighting on this one.

 

Another director not listed on the SRA roll at this co is Ian Besant of Right hassle as well.

 

Tine to send a denial letter,

I would start off by being rude to them about their associations with Wright Hassal

 

so address it to Paul Rice (named sol) and say,

 

Dear Paul and Ian,

I note that you have taken a few days off from your day job at Right Hassle so you can send out threatograms on behalf of a company that even they wouldnt associate themselves with.

 

Could you please inform me as to whether this letter meets the requirements of the new Civil Procedure Regulations for a letter before claim

and also explain what exactly the claim is for, namely monies due under a contractual obligation of for a breach of contract.

Likewise can you supply evidence that I, as the keeper of the vehicle have any liability for this supposed debt.

 

After you have done that I am sure you can magic up the missing permissions and authorities to occuply the land in question because neither the landowner or the council seem to be able to help them out in this matter.

 

When you have sought all of that for your client ask them why the amount claimed has gone up from £200 to £600 and how that fits with any contracual obligation, credit agreement or CPR for additional costs as I am again stumped as to how they arrive at this figure other than just making it up as they go along.

 

Now, you have an obligation as part of your enrolment to the SRA to act honestly so you have a duty to the courts as well as your rapacious clients and can you honestly say that you have shown due diligence in this manner.

 

As you may have gathered any debt to your client is vigourously denied and will be resisted in court and a full costs recovery order sought as their actions are manifestly unreasonable.

 

As your client has not created a keeper liability under the POFA i am minded to sue them for breach of the DPA for telling lies to obtain my keeper details. let them know this, VCS v Philip (Liverpool CC 2016) is the persuasive case for setting damages.

 

Forgot to mention CE Ltd/ZZPS have now passed this to their solicitors, QDR, who want £618 off me.

[johnhn]

thanks ericsbrother - they haven't written to me yet, but I think I'll enjoy replying to them when they do...

 

meanwhile it also looks as if my MP is going to intervene.

[ericsbrother]

then let him know that the hosptal trust is employing the only parking co to be dragged before the criminal courts by Trading Standards and that their track record of inflating their claims to ridiculous sums that have no legal basis is well reported.

 

Also let him know that Ashley Cohen, the real controlling interest in CEL is in breach of Companies House rules on listing those with a controlling interest in a company and that there has also been investigation into CEL and Ashley Cohen for forgery of a solicitors signature and using someone who is not on the SRA roll as their mouthpiece claiming they are a solicitor on their paperwork.

 

You could add a note at the bottom of the letter you send to the new solicitors that they should be careful as Ashley Cohen has a habit of forging solicitors signatures (amongst others, he also signed claims as the managing director of the Co-Operative society) and they may well find their monikers on all sorts of dodgy paperwork in the near furure.

 

All of this can then be used against them in a claim to show unreasonable behaviour

 

my betting is that the matter will get dropped when they realise you arent going to pay.

 

In many cases this was on the day of a case management meeting at court so they could be directed to either put up or shut up. they didnt attend.

[johnhn]

Meanwhile, an amusing little note from QDR, signed by Tim Hawker, Head of "Debt" Recovery Operations:

 

"Car Parking Operator: Civil Enforcement Ltd

Instructed by: ZZPS Limited

 

Thank you for your recent contact. We have updated your address on our records.

 

The parking charge notice was issued at The Royal Oldham Hospital on 15th April 2017 as ‘Payment Not Made In Accordance With Terms Displayed On Signage’

 

Please note on entering a car park and parking your vehicle, you enter into a contract with the Car Park Operator (CPO). The signage sets out the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be payable, if the conditions are not met. As the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions, the CPO was at liberty to issue a PCN.

 

Should payment in full not be received our client may review this for further legal action."

 

[yawn]

[dx100uk]

me thinks mr hawker is in someones pocket or could it just be..its the ZZPS robot pretending to be someone else...

[johnhn]

me thinks mr hawker is in someones pocket or could it just be..its the ZZPS robot pretending to be someone else...

 

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/timjhawker

 

Hmm...

[dx100uk]

ah the old wright Hassall third person letter

totally safe to ignore as only the PPC can issue any claim anyhow.

 

dx

[johnhn]

...and a reply from the council:

 

"With regards to your question about finding more detailed information on applications,

you may use link I provided previously to the Council’s website to search for applications.

 

However, if you are looking for more historical records,

you may carry out a local search on the area you are interested in to reveal all the relevant planning history. https://www.oldham.gov.uk/info/200203/commercial_property/355/search_local_land_charges

 

I must make you aware that an advertisement application does not have to be submitted by the “advertiser” themselves,

similarly a planning application does not have to be submitted by the owner of the land/premises for an application to considered.

If the parking enforcement company has changed over the years, details on existing signage can be changed without requiring advertisement consent.

 

In light of the above, and the advice previously given about deemed/express consent, no further action can be taken and this matter will now be closed."

[ericsbrother]

a third party cannot instruct them and they know it or they are just crap solicitors.

 

This means they are stretching credibility to beyond its elastic limits here.

 

However, it is just another threatogram so can be added to the pile.

 

Meanwhile, an amusing little note from QDR, signed by Tim Hawker, Head of "Debt" Recovery Operations:

 

"Car Parking Operator: Civil Enforcement Ltd

Instructed by: ZZPS Limited

 

Thank you for your recent contact. We have updated your address on our records.

 

The parking charge notice was issued at The Royal Oldham Hospital on 15th April 2017 as ‘Payment Not Made In Accordance With Terms Displayed On Signage’

 

Please note on entering a car park and parking your vehicle, you enter into a contract with the Car Park Operator (CPO). The signage sets out the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be payable, if the conditions are not met. As the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions, the CPO was at liberty to issue a PCN.

 

Should payment in full not be received our client may review this for further legal action."

 

[yawn]

 

so yet again the council are telling you they cant be arsed to even look into things,

well there is no point as far as they are concerned because they cant fine the company so no incentive for the minion writing this letter to even wake his boss up.