Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

[sb91]

Hello everyone!

I have been reading the various threads on challenging the Formal Letter of Claim by Wright Hassall and I would be very grateful for some advice on my next step.

The story has been fairly messy so far, but I will try to summarise the timeline so far.

I have been battling the various parties on behalf of my sibling since she first received the PCN for 'unauthorised parking on private land) back in May. She parked in a pub car park for a couple of hours and used an electronic number plate register system in the pub (which does not provide receipts).

The first letters were sent by Premier Park Ltd (who I believe are the operators of car park) and without full knowledge of the processes and availability of advice, my sister appealed directly to them and failed. Erroneously, the letters were also thrown away and the situation was then ignored. This was until ZZPS Ltd started sending debt recovery letters, which is when I became involved. I had communicated with them via email on a number of occasions to appeal the charge, but they only replied stating that they cannot accept appeals and to arrange payment.

My final email to ZZPS included the genuine customer exemption in ParkingEye v Beavis and a request for a copy of the contract proving that PremierPark are authorised to issue tickets on the land pursuant to the Consumer Contracts Regulations. I also reiterated that the charge should be cancelled and to provide the original documentation (including the POPLA code although the period to appeal had long passed anyway). They replied that Premier Park had already given the POPLA code and are unable themselves to provide another copy. Also, a contract can only be provided in case of litigation and they were not obligated to provide this as debt recovery.

Soon after, Wright Hassall began sending a number of letters chasing payment. During this time, I have been in contact with the landowner who said he will contact Premier Park to cancel the charge. This dragged out over a couple of weeks and he has now told me that Premier Park will not drop the case. While this was happening, I have made a number of telephone calls to WH informing them of my contact with the landowner and to hold the charge while this is being resolved.

This did not stop them from sending a Formal Letter of Claim (dated 5th December), which is for an outstanding balance of £208. The letter states Premier Park LTD as the car park operator, but there is now no mention of ZZPS. The standard threats of CCJ are included and a statement that the letter is in compliance with the applicable Pre Action Protocols.

I feel that my actions to date have probably not helped and if anything, given them encouragement to press further. I have seen a template on this website to send in response to this letter, however I am unsure if this would still be useful in my case?

Any advice and/or templates would be much appreciated.

[mystery1]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

A letter of claim response is essentially asking for information so you can delay matters or gain information. Rarely does it stop court action. Do it and see what happens. No point worrying about the past.

If the keeper and driver are different then the notice to keeper will be useful as it usually, in their case, is fatally flawed in that it doesn't allow enough time for service.

M1

[sb91]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

Thank you for the swift reply mystery1.

The template was actually posted by yourself back in July, so I will give it a go!

[sb91]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

Hello

I have received the following reply today from Wright Hassall. Any further advice would be much appreciated!

They do not seem to be letting up and have called a couple of times asking for payment since I sent my reply on December 19th. I repeatedly said I am awaiting for a formal reply to my email, to which they said their admin team will be replying.

To be honest, I would like to get this resolved (but not at the full cost they are chasing for!).

Thanks

SB


Dear [Removed]
Our Reference: 1340590Client Reference: 102614625Car Parking Operator: Premier Park Ltd Instructed by: ZZPS LimitedRE: [Removed]Balance outstanding: £ 208.00With reference to your recent email, the contents of which have been duly noted.

If you have received a letter from us and believe that it does not constitute a valid Letter Before Action/of Claim please refer to the front page, specifically the middle at the top of the text, just below the address details. Our Letter Before Action/of Claim states “FORMAL LETTER OF CLAIM” in capital and bold writing.

If the letter you are in receipt of does not have this text, be rest assured it is NOT a formal Letter Before Action/of Claim. As you would imagine our Client prefers to resolve this matter without the need for County Court Proceedings.

Note if we go on to issue a formal Letter of Claim then as stated above you will be able to clearly determine this by the BOLD lettering in the middle of the front page.

We are required to comply specifically with Annex B of the Pre Action Protocol and we do so fully. In proceedings we comply with the spirit of Annex A and we conduct litigation in accordance with the overriding objective. The Letter Before Claim makes clear the action that will be taken should non-payment continue and the consequences of such action. We are confident that our pre action correspondence meets all requirements for information to be provided to the recipient and will therefore not re-issue.

With regards to the contract between the Landowner and the Car Parking Operator, this is a commercially sensitive document and will only be provided in court.

Our clients have confirmed the car park in question is managed by Automatic Number Plate Reader (ANPR) scheme and the vehicle [Removed] was identified as unauthorised by the car parking operator as they had no authorisation on their system for this registration.

We can confirm that the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was £100.00. As the Car Parking Operator was unable to recover the sums due they outsourced the collection of the Parking Charge Notice to ZZPS Limited, as a result further extra recovery charges were incurred. Section 19.9 of the British Parking Association Code of Conduct recognises that it may be necessary for Car Parking Operators to take such recovery action and does not require the Operator to stipulate how much these recovery charges are in advance.

Our clients have previously confirmed that your appeal was rejected by the car parking operator, and A POPLA code would have been issued by the car parking operator within this letter, upon which you could have appealed to the independent adjudicator. Our clients have no record of an appeal being upheld by POPLA in favour of you. Therefore this account remains outstanding and payment is required in settlement of £208.00

Please see below our payment methods and contact details for your convenience:-

Online: www.paymentsplace.com/wrighthassall
Please quote your reference if paying online or on the reverse by cheque or postal order

Telephone: 01926 758101
Fax: 01926 885588
Email: support@wrighthassall.co.uk
Address: Wright Hassall LLP, Olympus Avenue, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV34 6BF

We look forward to receiving payment from you in regards to this matter.

Yours sincerely
Tim Hawker
Head of Debt Recovery Operations
On behalf of Wright Hassall LLP


From: [Removed]
Sent: 19 December 2016 09:23
To: Debt Support
Subject: Reference 1340590 - Response to Formal Letter of Claim



Dear Tim Hawker,

I write in response to your Formal Letter of Claim dated 5th December 2016, the contents of which are noted.

As the pre-action protocols expect us to exchange sufficient information to understand each other’s position, please forward to myself the original parking charge notice and a picture of the signs at the location, as well as the operator’s contract which allows them to operate at the site.

As well as the information already requested, please answer the following questions:
What type of car park is it?
What contravention gives a cause of action?
Who contravened your rules?
Who you are pursuing?
With evidence, have you followed the rules laid down in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4?
How is the £208 made up?

Not only will this information help comply with the pre-action protocols, it will also help achievement of the over-riding objectives.

Having done some research on your claims, I request that if my requests for information are ignored that your claim complies with:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 16

Contents of the claim form
16.2
(1) The claim form must –
(a) contain a concise statement of the nature of the claim

Contents of the particulars of claim
16.4
(1) Particulars of claim must include –
(a) a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies;

Practice Direction 16

Other matters to be included in particulars of claim:

7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.

Practice Direction 22:

Who may sign the statement of truth:
3.1 In a statement of case, a response or an application notice, the statement of truth must be signed by

(2) the legal representative of the party or litigation friend.

3.7 Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on his behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client’s belief, not his own. In signing he must state the capacity in which he signs and the name of his firm where appropriate.

3.9 The individual who signs a statement of truth must print his full name clearly beneath his signature.

3.10 A legal representative who signs a statement of truth must sign in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

Practice Direction 7E:

Signature
10 Any provision of the CPR which requires a document to be signed by any person is satisfied by that person entering their name on an online form.

I await your response.

Yours sincerely

[Removed]

[R0b]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

I'm sure M1 can provide more information but surely that email they have sent you freely admitting that your daughter parked on the land without authorisation means that their client has no legal standing to bring a claim, unless they have 'exclusive possession' of the land. If they are merely managing the car park then that is not exclusive possession and so they have no right to bring a claim.

Does the pub notices explicitly require registration of the car? Equally you could argue that by attending the pub and paying for food and/or drinks, then authorisation would be implied as presumably the purpose of the notice is to prevent non-customers from parking.

They are acting unreasonably in explaining how the £208 charge is made up, unless they can account for the £108 by giving a breakdown of the charges then they have no right to account for it, since for all we know that additional amount could be something they have simply added on without reason.

Sort of shot themselves in the foot with their response I think.

[sb91]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

R0b

Thank you for the swift response.

The point around exclusive possession is an interesting one, which I will definitely look into.

I have previously tried to argue that the purpose of registering the number plate is to protect the landlord's commercial interests, which have not been abused as my sibling actually spent time and money within the establishment. Unsurprisingly, this was ignored and my appeals were denied. It is frustrating that no tangible evidence or receipt is given after entering a registration number (I think this can be also be a challenge against their ANPR system being unfair).

I also agree with the breakdown of cost being unreasonable.

I will wait and hope for some more feedback from this forum before I draft a response.

Thanks again.

SB

[R0b]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

If you look at the many threads on here, a prohibited sign does not amount to a contract but it is instead a trespass if no authorisation or permission was granted, and only those who have exclusive possession can bring a claim.

The law is clear on what is considered exclusive possession as in the House of Lords case JA Pye (Oxford) v Graham 2003 where it was held that possession has two elements to it: (1) an intention to possess and (2) factual possession

The intention to possess must be along the lines of excluding the world, including the owner of the land who has title to it, as far as possible.

Factual possession is simply to what extent does the person have control over the land and/or occupying it.

For example, a lease of land would show an intention as there is exclusivity in the land that is leased and to prevent others from coming onto it without permission. A tenancy also creates exclusive possession but a lodger does not because they would not be occupying the property exclusively. Where there is a dispute between possession then there is a general presumption that the owner who has title to the land is the person in possession.

Anyway, the fact that a parking company has put up signs (if any) does not create exclusive possession. They would simply be managing the car park on behalf of the owner, there is no intention of them having possession or occupying it.

I'm sure M1 will add to this, but they're unlikely to win at court I think, simply because its a case of trespass and they have no legal standing to bring it in their own name, that would be the pub owner.

[mystery1]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

1. Zzzps cannot go to court as a mere debt collector.

2. Is the letter headed formal letter of claim or just debt collection garbage ?

3. Possession was an issue in Beavis although that never came before the higher 2 courts. http://nebula.wsimg.com/8bc2fd992ffc...&alloworigin=1 #5.

M1

[R0b]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

I think the contract would have to spell out that the parking company has exclusive possession in order for them to sue in trespass. Merely giving someone the right to permit third parties to use the land couldn't amount to possession, likely because the land in question is being used in a way decided by the landowner and not the parking company as they are merely there administering it. Though I don't know what the contents of the contracts but even those with a licence do not fall within the remit of exclusive possession, unless they have a right to occupy the land and is worded accordingly.

Presumably though, parking companies do not need to occupy the land and I am assuming that will be reflected in the contract too

[sb91]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

R0b - I will need to clarify the level of signage for the car park, as I cannot confirm whether it is appropriate.

M1 -

1. If ZZPS cannot, I assume Wright Hassall will be the party to take this to court?

2. The letter is headed 'Formal Letter of Claim'

I have read on other threads that a person unrelated to the charge can send a cheque for a lesser but reasonable amount to settle the case. Would this be a worthwhile option in this case or potentially detrimental?

I would be grateful if my options could be summarised at this point!

Thanks

SB

[mystery1]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

I think the contract would have to spell out that the parking company has exclusive possession in order for them to sue in trespass. Merely giving someone the right to permit third parties to use the land couldn't amount to possession, likely because the land in question is being used in a way decided by the landowner and not the parking company as they are merely there administering it. Though I don't know what the contents of the contracts but even those with a licence do not fall within the remit of exclusive possession, unless they have a right to occupy the land and is worded accordingly.

Presumably though, parking companies do not need to occupy the land and I am assuming that will be reflected in the contract too

Now i'm a bit more awake

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...0-judgment.pdf

" As it was not the owner of the car park,ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it
may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it
lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying. "

"He would have
been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been
limited to the occupation value of the parking space. "

" It is clear that, but for
the agreement made when parking, Mr Beavis would not have had any right to park
at all, and would have been liable to damages in trespass, for which it would, almost
certainly, not have been worth BAPF’s while to pursue him."



M1

- - - Updated - - -

1. If ZZPS cannot, I assume Wright Hassall will be the party to take this to court?

Wright Hassall are the legal representatives of the party taking you to court (potentially).

2. The letter is headed 'Formal Letter of Claim'

Who is named as client ? Surely not ZZps ?

I have read on other threads that a person unrelated to the charge can send a cheque for a lesser but reasonable amount to settle the case. Would this be a worthwhile option in this case or potentially detrimental?

You can negotiate but i'm not sure what anyone is getting at with the "unrelated person" stuff ?

M1

[sb91]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

These points do give me some confidence, but I would prefer to get this settled outside of court!

There is no 'client' specified in the Formal Letter of Claim, just that Premier Park Ltd are the 'Car Park Operator'. A previous letter does state that they (Wright Hassall) have been instructed by ZZPS LTD who are acting on behalf of Premier Park Ltd.

I think the intention behind the 'unrelated person' (i.e. anyone other than the person charged) is because if the owner of the car tried to send a cheque at this point, then that could be used against them as acceptance of the charge.

In this circumstance, either myself or another person could send a cheque with a letter along the lines of "This is on the understanding that should you cash the cheque it is in full and final settlement of this matter and the ticket is cancelled'

Is this something worth considering? Or would there be a stronger reply to Wright Hassall's latest email?

SB

[mystery1]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

There is no 'client' specified in the Formal Letter of Claim, just that Premier Park Ltd are the 'Car Park Operator'. A previous letter does state that they (Wright Hassall) have been instructed by ZZPS LTD who are acting on behalf of Premier Park Ltd.

Ok so it would appear Zzps are no longer involved and Premier Park are considering court. It's rare they do but they have done it before http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Premier_Park.html

I think the intention behind the 'unrelated person' (i.e. anyone other than the person charged) is because if the owner of the car tried to send a cheque at this point, then that could be used against them as acceptance of the charge.

It's boll0cks. Negotiate if you wish but stop reading pish from loons.

"This is on the understanding that should you cash the cheque it is in full and final settlement of this matter and the ticket is cancelled'

That is fine.



I would just reiterate the earlier response asking for further info.

I assume this being for a sibling means they were driver and RK ? If so, say nothing. If not and they are different state clearly that the RK is not the driver.

M1

[sb91]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

Ok so it would appear Zzps are no longer involved and Premier Park are considering court. It's rare they do but they have done it before http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Premier_Park.html



It's boll0cks. Negotiate if you wish but stop reading pish from loons.



That is fine.



I would just reiterate the earlier response asking for further info.

I assume this being for a sibling means they were driver and RK ? If so, say nothing. If not and they are different state clearly that the RK is not the driver.

M1

I am not exactly sure what information to ask for or what to do next.

In my reply, I will challenge the £108 additional charge on top of the original fee of £100 and ask for the breakdown. As per Section 19.9 below, surely they can give me a breakdown now that the charge as been applied?

"Section 19.9 of the British Parking Association Code of Conduct recognises that it may be necessary for Car Parking Operators to take such recovery action and does not require the Operator to stipulate how much these recovery charges are in advance."

I would be grateful if my potential options can be summarised!

Thanks

SB

[mystery1]

Re: Wright Hassall: Formal Letter of Claim (ZZPS Ltd & Premier Park Ltd)

Option 1.

Pay

Option 2.

Do nothing and wait for the claim to arrive.

Option 3.

Ask for a copy of the contract (signs), parking charge notice etc as we already have. Worth repeating the reply from before.


Option 3 is best but they will probably not send much/anything.

M1