The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim

[trevormcclelland]

Hi all, I am aware that you guys will have heard about this umpteen times in the past. I have read some of the posts but have some other questions. To set the scene, basically My car was parked on private land and overstayed, accidentally, by a few hours. We then waited for the parking company to get in contact, of course making them go to as much trouble as possible. The parking company is with IPC as opposed to BPA. My queries are as follows.

1. I am the registered keeper but wasn't the driver and the NTK arrived 88 days after the date of the alleged offence, is this relevant for IPC?
2. Are there grounds for going down the not fair estimate of loss, especially as the £50 fine has now jumped up to £221!
3. Lastly, if none of the above are good enough grounds to win a case, shouId I contact Wright Hassall and tell them I am prepared to go to court to stop them sending threatening letters (if it is them and not ZZPS, which is likely) in the hope they will not want to go to to the expense?

Any help on this would be gratefully received especially as I only received the letter last Friday 13/05 but it is dated 05/05 with 14 days from date if letter to reply!

Regards

[mystery1]

Re: The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim

Is this an actual claim or a letter of claim ?

1. IPC, no because they don't care about the law. The court however is entirely another matter.

2. Depends on the type of car park.

3. You have a watertight case as registered keeper who was not driving.

Post up sanitised paperwork.

M1

[ostell]

Re: The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim

The NTK arriving after 88 days means that the keeper cannot not be held liable. If you can show that you weren't driving then there's nothing they can really do except go after the driver, who they don't know.

[trevormcclelland]

Re: The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim

Hi, thanks for the replies. I don't really have any evidence to show I wasn't driving, I was at home. The driver wasn't. How do I post a pic of thr letter please, I can't see an option for it?

[mystery1]

Re: The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim

Go advanced and use the paperclip or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnPAhAdxZQ or use the emails in my signature.

Well your witness statement and that of any other persons who can show you were at home are evidence.

M1

[trevormcclelland]

Re: The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim



- - - Updated - - -

[trevormcclelland]

Re: The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim



- - - Updated - - -

Got there in the end. Can you elaborate on IPC rules on timescales for NTK? Also what should I do next, ignore? Contact Wright Hassell and mention all the above? Will they be interested or tell me it is too late for representations?

Sorry for all the questions!

[mystery1]

Re: The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim

Can you elaborate on IPC rules on timescales for NTK?

The rules of the IPC mean nothing. The rules for keeper liability are set down in statute and cannot be ignored in court.


Dear Sirs,

I write in response to your "letter of claim" dated 5th May 2016, the contents of which are noted. I was not the driver of the vehicle at that time and am under no statutory obligation to name the driver either. I further note that the keeper liability provisions of the Protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule have not been met.

As the pre action protocols expect us to exchange sufficient information to understand each others position please forward to myself the original parking charge notice and a picture of the signs at the location as well as the operators contract which allows them to operate at the site (or indeed confirmation they own the land in question).

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 ?

Have you followed the rules laid down in the Protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 ?

How is the £221 balance made up ?

Not only will this information help comply with the pre action protocols it will also help achieve the over riding objective.

Having done some research on your claims i request that if you ignore my requests for information that your claim complies with

CPR 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.


CPR 22

Documents to be verified by a statement of truth
22.1
(1) The following documents must be verified by a statement of truth –
(a) a statement of case



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



Send via email.

M1

[wales01man]

Re: The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim

Bloody ell M1 what a reply

[trevormcclelland]

Re: The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim

That is a savage response! I have just emailed it, I will keep you posted on the response, if any!

Many thanks for the swift responses.

[mystery1]

Re: The dreaded Wright Hassall formal claim

Don't get too excited. They'll either not respond or make a half arsed attempt. Sets up well for later though.

M1