They may claim to be "solicitors" but in fact this bottom-dwelling firm of wannabe legals is simply acting as a glorified debt collector. Note the wording: "We have been instructed by ZZPS, who are acting on behalf of (not so) Smart Parking".
ZZPS are the debt collector equivalent of something brown and smelly you avoid stepping in. They are a totally powerless and useless firm of bottom-dwelling debt collectors. They can instruct god to bring down a plague for anyone cares. They have absolutely zero standing in the contract allegedly breached by the driver.
The ONLY entity that can instruct a solicitor to take action such as a Letter of Claim or a claim itself is (not so)(Smart Parking. ZZPS or their equally useless debt recovery arm, GCTT are simply not a factor in ANYTHING to do with this matter. You can safely (but carefully) use their letters as toilet paper.
When the time comes, (not so) Smart Parking are most likely going to use DCB Legal to issue the LoC and the eventual claim.
If it were me who received that letter from QDR, I would respond with:
Re: Your reference [xxxxx] / alleged debt relating to Smart Parking Limited
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your latest piece of recycled threat-o-gram paper.
Let us start with the basics. You state that you have been “instructed by ZZPS Limited who are acting on behalf of Smart Parking Limited”. In other words, Smart Parking have not instructed you at all. A powerless, bottom-dwelling, third-party debt collector (ZZPS) has passed a file to a firm of wannabe legals to send some template bluster. That may impress the uninitiated, but it does nothing to alter the legal position.
ZZPS are not a party to any alleged contract, have no cause of action, and have no standing whatsoever. They sit entirely outside the alleged parking contract like something brown and unpleasant on the pavement that most people sensibly avoid stepping in. They can “instruct” whoever they like or pray for any plague they fancy; it remains legally meaningless. The only entity with any conceivable locus to commence proceedings is Smart Parking Limited, and even they would face serious difficulties.
Your letter is nothing more than glorified debt collection masquerading as legal correspondence. It is not a Letter of Claim compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. It is simply an exercise in hollow intimidation, dressed up with the usual scary buzzwords (CCJ, enforcement, credit file, employment prospects, etc.) that you and your sewer-level, debt-chasing chums churn out by the thousand. I am not fooled.
For the avoidance of doubt:
1. The alleged debt is denied in its entirety.
2. I will not be making any payment to ZZPS, to their GCTT sideline, or to your firm.
3. You have no independent standing. Unless and until Smart Parking Limited themselves choose to issue a fully compliant Letter of Claim, there is nothing further to discuss.
Any further debt collector drivel from you, ZZPS, GCTT or any other bottom-feeding outfit you farm this out to will be treated as harassment and retained for regulatory and evidential purposes. Any genuine legal correspondence (from an actual principal with standing, not from a chain of intermediaries playing “pass the parcel”) must be compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol and must come direct on Smart Parking Limited letterhead or from properly instructed, real solicitors acting for them, not for ZZPS.
Given the above, you are formally put on notice that I expect you to close your file and crawl back to ZZPS with the news that their manufactured “debt” is not going to be prised from this pocket.
For the avoidance of doubt, I refer you to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
Yours faithfully,
[Name]