Wright Hassall : Formal Letter of Claim

[mystery1]

Re: POPLA Rebuttal following Beavis vs PE

@mystery1

Ive popped the PCN on for you

Can you try again. It looks like you did it fine but there must be a site issue as it doesn't come up in a larger readable form.

M1

[mo781]

Re: POPLA Rebuttal following Beavis vs PE

@mystery1

second time lucky

[mystery1]

Re: POPLA Rebuttal following Beavis vs PE

I would like to add the following information to my popla appeal.

The notice to keeper fails to included the statutory information.

1. It was sent on 7/5/15 for an event on 23/4/15 which is 14 days. PoFA 2012 schedule 4 para 9 (6) gives a presumed date of delivery of 11/5/15. It was late and there can be no keeper liability.

2. The notice to keeper does not specify a period of parking. The notice merely indicates a time of entry in to the car park and an exit time from the car park. The BPA code of practice makes reference to the fact that entry is not parking and dictates a grace period must be allowed partly for this very reason. As the keeper is not the person who was driving the keeper cannot know what the period of parking is and the legislation dictates it must be specified, presumably for that very reason. In Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998) it was held that the specified information required to be provided by legislation should indeed be accurate and that the failure made the relevant notice invalid. It was also the deciding factor in Parking Eye v Mrs X Case No: 3JD08399 IN THE ALTRINCHAM COUNTY COURT.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5a80df6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

3. The notice does not say the charges have not been paid in full.

4. The notice does not comply with F or H.

The initial loss indicated by Highview would in fact appear to be no more than an average cost of each space and nothing caused by the vehicle in question. With no initial loss there is no genuine pre estimate of loss.


M1

[mo781]

Re: POPLA Rebuttal following Beavis vs PE

[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

Thanks for your help, I'll keep you posted with the outcome

[mo781]

Re: POPLA Rebuttal following Beavis vs PE

[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

Just wanted to confirm is it okay to quote ''As the keeper is not the person who was driving'' ?

[mystery1]

Re: POPLA Rebuttal following Beavis vs PE

As the keeper is not always the person who was driving the keeper cannot always know what the period of parking is

M1

[DirtySmurf]

Re: POPLA Rebuttal following Beavis vs PE

Their genuine pre estimate includes appeal and popla appeal? so they pre-estimate that everyone is going to appeal and appeal to popla?

[mystery1]

Re: POPLA Rebuttal following Beavis vs PE

Indeed. They will lose anyway though.

M1

[DirtySmurf]

Re: POPLA Rebuttal following Beavis vs PE

So what if someone pays the charge.... that hasnt included an appeal or popla appeal... so how can they charge for those parts if they havent happened? Or am I mistaken?

[mystery1]

Re: POPLA Rebuttal following Beavis vs PE

The whole thing is a sham but in this world you can do anything to anyone who lets you or can't stop you. In Beavis they gave up on trying to explain them as justified on cost and said they were needed to keep order blah blah blah.

M1

[mo781]

Wright Hassall : Formal Letter of Claim

@mystery1

Hi All / m1

I have just received a Formal Letter of Claim from Wright Hassall solicitors as attached redacted, to be honest I have ignored all the other letters to date.

However do i need to reply back or can I just carry on ignoring the communications. It states the client is ZZPS which is the debt collector but the car park operator in CMS.

Just getting slightly worried now.

Many Thanks

[Celestine]

Re: Wright Hassall : Formal Letter of Claim

This may be a formal letter of claim, but note their liberal use of the word 'may'.....:tinysmile_twink_t2:

I'll leave the parking charge notice issue to [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] but personally I wouldn't worry UNTIL you receive an actual court claim form. (which will cost them £35 to issue)

[mystery1]

Re: Wright Hassall : Formal Letter of Claim

I like to respond to proper letters before claim as i don't wish anyone to suffer adverse cost issue if a claims is pursued.

In this case, as you note and [MENTION=2]Celestine[/MENTION] has indicated, the letter is bogroll. ZZPS have no standing as they do not own anything.

File and ignore.

M1

[mo781]

Re: Wright Hassall : Formal Letter of Claim

[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] [MENTION=2]Celestine[/MENTION]

Will do, Many thanks for your advice and expertise. I thought it was going to be a 'wright hassall'.

[mo781]

Re: Wright Hassall : Formal Letter of Claim

Hi [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

Following up on the parking ticket rebuttal you kindly helped me with, its been a while since I received any correspondence.

I have just got back from a 4 week holiday and I have a letter from the new POPLA board as below:-

Your parking charge appeal against Highview Parking:

We have now received the case file from Highview and you should have received this from the operator, If you have not please contact the operator directly.

You have 14 days from the date of this letter to provide comments etc.........

However I have not received anything from Highview and also the 14 days have past from the receipt date of 4th August.

Any chance you could possibly assist me with this please.

Thanks