Ignore or not?, Time to try to settle this |
Ignore or not?, Time to try to settle this |
Thu, 30 May 2013 - 21:18
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Right, I'm getting a bit tired of the ignore/don't ignore argument breaking out in advice threads. So, thrash it out here. This thread will remain a sticky until I'm happy we've come to some sort of consensus.
Please don't have the argument in advice threads. If necessary point new OPs to this thread to make up their own minds. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 30 May 2013 - 21:18
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 15:29
Post
#81
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Feel free to draft a new sticky between you.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 15:48
Post
#82
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
Would issuing 300,000 claims a year put them in line for being a vexatious litigant? It would certainly be a record. About 1.4 million civil claims and petitions are brought to the county courts each year so potentially we would have one litigant bringing nearly 20% of all court cases. I don't believe that situation would be tolerated for all sorts of reasons. The PPCs already got their much demanded keeper liability but I am not sure that they would appreciate private parking being brought under s statutory framework with fines capped at £10 but that is the sort of radical action they risk if they were to abuse the judicial process but submitting hundreds of thousands of claims. Alternatively they will be declared vexatious litigants as they really have no interest in the courts other than using them as the final stage in their threatogram chain. If PE were denied access to the courts it wouldn't be long before their whole business would collapse as nobody would pay any of their "fines". -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 16:24
Post
#83
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,007 Joined: 2 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,663 |
although, even then, it is my opinion that they should have to prove the identity of the driver beyond reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. Eh, "conviction"?!?! WTF, we need to watch our language... -------------------- Remember: No one can fine you or issue a penalty other than a court, a policeman or a local authority under legislative powers.
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 Further guidance on PoFA - DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 Essential Reading: Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) Guide to the Legislation - to learn how the private parking charges process works look at this flowchartParking on Private Land Appeals or POPLA is run by London Councils - the British Parking Association Ltd. (BPA Ltd) pays London Councils for this service. In fact, POPLA is a kangaroo court that rubber stumps private parking companies claims - read this Telegraph article and this Blog. The related documents can be found here. To see for yourself why POPLA has no legal powers and is not really independent please download and read this document from London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee. More evidence that POPLA is not independent - read how PPCs are subverting the due appeal process and seek a back door deal to influence POPLA decisions. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 16:43
Post
#84
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
although, even then, it is my opinion that they should have to prove the identity of the driver beyond reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. Eh, "conviction"?!?! WTF, we need to watch our language... In relation to a bye law prosecution it's correct. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 17:13
Post
#85
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,007 Joined: 2 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,663 |
In relation to a bye law prosecution it's correct. What, criminal conviction?! -------------------- Remember: No one can fine you or issue a penalty other than a court, a policeman or a local authority under legislative powers.
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 Further guidance on PoFA - DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 Essential Reading: Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) Guide to the Legislation - to learn how the private parking charges process works look at this flowchartParking on Private Land Appeals or POPLA is run by London Councils - the British Parking Association Ltd. (BPA Ltd) pays London Councils for this service. In fact, POPLA is a kangaroo court that rubber stumps private parking companies claims - read this Telegraph article and this Blog. The related documents can be found here. To see for yourself why POPLA has no legal powers and is not really independent please download and read this document from London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee. More evidence that POPLA is not independent - read how PPCs are subverting the due appeal process and seek a back door deal to influence POPLA decisions. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 17:31
Post
#86
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
In relation to a bye law prosecution it's correct. What, criminal conviction?! Yes... -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 17:39
Post
#87
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,007 Joined: 2 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,663 |
-------------------- Remember: No one can fine you or issue a penalty other than a court, a policeman or a local authority under legislative powers.
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 Further guidance on PoFA - DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 Essential Reading: Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) Guide to the Legislation - to learn how the private parking charges process works look at this flowchartParking on Private Land Appeals or POPLA is run by London Councils - the British Parking Association Ltd. (BPA Ltd) pays London Councils for this service. In fact, POPLA is a kangaroo court that rubber stumps private parking companies claims - read this Telegraph article and this Blog. The related documents can be found here. To see for yourself why POPLA has no legal powers and is not really independent please download and read this document from London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee. More evidence that POPLA is not independent - read how PPCs are subverting the due appeal process and seek a back door deal to influence POPLA decisions. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 17:41
Post
#88
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Contravention of the bye laws is a crime. That's why it goes before the magistrates. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 18:01
Post
#89
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,007 Joined: 2 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,663 |
Contravention of the bye laws is a crime. That's why it goes before the magistrates. If we, the UK, as a modern civilised society are talking about de-criminalising drugs, why the heck we still criminalise trespass? Sorry, way off the topic. Thank you, Southpaw, for clarifying. I guess this is why the total number of my posts resembles only the last three digits in the total number of yours. This post has been edited by tapas600: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 18:06 -------------------- Remember: No one can fine you or issue a penalty other than a court, a policeman or a local authority under legislative powers.
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 Further guidance on PoFA - DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 Essential Reading: Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) Guide to the Legislation - to learn how the private parking charges process works look at this flowchartParking on Private Land Appeals or POPLA is run by London Councils - the British Parking Association Ltd. (BPA Ltd) pays London Councils for this service. In fact, POPLA is a kangaroo court that rubber stumps private parking companies claims - read this Telegraph article and this Blog. The related documents can be found here. To see for yourself why POPLA has no legal powers and is not really independent please download and read this document from London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee. More evidence that POPLA is not independent - read how PPCs are subverting the due appeal process and seek a back door deal to influence POPLA decisions. |
|
|
Sun, 16 Jun 2013 - 06:46
Post
#90
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
Could I suggest that those dealing with PE claims have a look at the Somerfield link below and compare it with the claims going in. To me it suggests that there is a degree of what might be called market testing; trying to identify the groups of motorists that will cave-in for the least cost.
PE are a commercial organisation and seek out the best return. They do not appear to be crusading for the BPA as closer examination of their legal claims would put a large hole in the industry - the last thing that they would want. Have a look at how they deal with "exceptions" - who sets them, how they are administered, what happens when they find one. Para 53 Also have a look at Para 56 and 59 "The point of the exercise...." They are bound by a contract that they will never readily expose. So ignoring until it gets to court is still an option in certain (IMHO most) cases. |
|
|
Sun, 16 Jun 2013 - 16:43
Post
#91
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,007 Joined: 2 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,663 |
Good points, emanresu. I have also made an observation based on my reading of the case that might be of use - here.
This post has been edited by tapas600: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 - 16:44 -------------------- Remember: No one can fine you or issue a penalty other than a court, a policeman or a local authority under legislative powers.
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 Further guidance on PoFA - DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 Essential Reading: Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) Guide to the Legislation - to learn how the private parking charges process works look at this flowchartParking on Private Land Appeals or POPLA is run by London Councils - the British Parking Association Ltd. (BPA Ltd) pays London Councils for this service. In fact, POPLA is a kangaroo court that rubber stumps private parking companies claims - read this Telegraph article and this Blog. The related documents can be found here. To see for yourself why POPLA has no legal powers and is not really independent please download and read this document from London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee. More evidence that POPLA is not independent - read how PPCs are subverting the due appeal process and seek a back door deal to influence POPLA decisions. |
|
|
Sat, 10 Aug 2013 - 10:50
Post
#92
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,582 Joined: 9 Feb 2006 Member No.: 4,813 |
Contravention of the bye laws is a crime. That's why it goes before the magistrates. The fine for which, if found guilty, goes to HMCS so there's nothing in it for a PPC to take action resulting in a byelaw contravention. -------------------- The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 - 13:57
Post
#93
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 15 Aug 2013 Member No.: 64,438 |
i took the advise from all the forums, inculding Moneysupermarket and ignored all the letters. Even read treads on watchdog to PPC and not to contact them at all. i got a parking charge for parking in a free car park out side of a marked box.
i ignored every letter as advised, this charge than increased from £60 to 125. i recevied a court summons where the charges increased to £150 without a further letter, plus court costs, increasing the total to £175. i phoned UKCPS to question why the last letter i had was £125 and than the court summons is £150 plus £25 court costs. they said they have a right to charge extra costs, and i can dispute it and go to court if i like, but the charges will have to be paid. plus they will ask the court for travel costs. they refuse to send me photo of the car, unless i request in writing, and they said the law has changed where they can take the RK to court if we dont give them the drivers name. The court summons was from Northampton, i live in kent. These people are bullies and hide behind different acts of law to con the public weighing everything up, i ended up paying the £125, it was stressful, and i dont know what amount the fines were going to end at. Im not sure the advise given on line to ignore should be taken seriouly. in hingsight, i should have appealed and followed the process, and in maybe in future park correctly. This post has been edited by hasy23: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 - 14:00 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 - 18:44
Post
#94
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
shame you didn't post on here earlier.....
you must have found us after the event... -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Mon, 23 Sep 2013 - 10:56
Post
#95
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 19 May 2011 Member No.: 46,811 |
What happened to advice that these tickets were simply invoices and that you could offer to pay what you considered to be reasonable given the nature of your "infringement"? Is that no longer valid?
This post has been edited by Derry: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 - 11:09 |
|
|
Mon, 23 Sep 2013 - 16:00
Post
#96
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
What happened to advice that these tickets were simply invoices and that you could offer to pay what you considered to be reasonable given the nature of your "infringement"? Is that no longer valid? Still valid although it's now possible to chase the registered keeper instead. Some PPCs have started to utilise courts much more, especially Parking Eye, which is a bigger change than PoFA when you ignore. On the plus side is popla which is free and almost guaranteed if you use the winning points previously exposed by the many successful appeals heard so far. |
|
|
Mon, 4 Aug 2014 - 17:05
Post
#97
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,114 Joined: 7 Aug 2009 Member No.: 31,007 |
With more PPCs switching to the IPC, and with the IPC, having recently gained IAS accreditation, now showing its true colours by rejecting extremely strong and valid appeals, and making numerous errors of law in the process, I now suggest a two-track approach in England and Wales:
1) (BPA/ POPLA) appeal, then appeal to POPLA 2) (IPC/ IAS ) send short letter denying liability, but not to bother appealing, since the "Independent" Appeals Service (reported to be run by ex-clampers) will almost certainly reject the appeal, regardless of its merits, and since there is a risk that a county court judge will attach undue weight to an "independent" verdict against the motorist when coming to his/her own conclusion on the merits of the case. Thoughts? This post has been edited by anon45: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 - 14:43 |
|
|
Sat, 9 Aug 2014 - 15:41
Post
#98
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 16 Oct 2006 From: S.Yorks Member No.: 8,288 |
With more PPCs switching to the IPC, and with the IPC, having recently gained IAS accreditation, now showing its true colours by rejecting extremely strong and valid appeals, and making numerous errors of law in the process, I now suggest a two-track approach in England and Wales: I suggest that if The IPC has gained IAS accreditation as an independent, impartial, and accurate/high quality provider of a service, and is now taking the piss by being partial, institutionally biassed due to being staffed by ex-clampers, and making stupid errors of law that all seem to favour the interests of its paymasters, then the thing may be to attack by reporting their piss-taking to the IAS. The IAS holds itself out as a serious alternative to government accreditation for laboratories, quality management, standards compliance etc. etc. The IPC is a tiny percentage of its income. So if the IPC takes the piss, and hence threatens IAS's reputation and credibility, then it threatens IAS's fundamental business model and their very existence. IPC would lose all credibility if they manage to lose IAS accreditation, so a challenge to their independence, impartiality and competence (lack of errors in law), if done via IAS, would present IPC with the choice of commercial suicide or cleaning their act up and becoming independent, impartial and competent. It dosent cost like a challenge in court, (the accreditation body should do all the work) and it should hold IPC to a higher standard, because accreditation deals not only in the exact letter of the law, but in reputation and credibility as well. Message me if you want to start a new thread and run with it. Dr.S -------------------- Dr.S Telephone calls may be recorded for the purpose of detection and prevention of crime. I am an engineer/physicist, not a lawyer. My answers are based on The Laws 'O Physics (which ya' can 'ne change, Cap'n). The law of the land is a much more slippery and changeable thing. "The only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence" - Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents". |
|
|
Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 21:35
Post
#99
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
With more PPCs switching to the IPC, and with the IPC, having recently gained IAS accreditation, now showing its true colours by rejecting extremely strong and valid appeals, and making numerous errors of law in the process, I now suggest a two-track approach in England and Wales: I suggest that if The IPC has gained IAS accreditation as an independent, impartial, and accurate/high quality provider of a service, and is now taking the piss by being partial, institutionally biassed due to being staffed by ex-clampers, and making stupid errors of law that all seem to favour the interests of its paymasters, then the thing may be to attack by reporting their piss-taking to the IAS. The IAS holds itself out as a serious alternative to government accreditation for laboratories, quality management, standards compliance etc. etc. The IPC is a tiny percentage of its income. So if the IPC takes the piss, and hence threatens IAS's reputation and credibility, then it threatens IAS's fundamental business model and their very existence. IPC would lose all credibility if they manage to lose IAS accreditation, so a challenge to their independence, impartiality and competence (lack of errors in law), if done via IAS, would present IPC with the choice of commercial suicide or cleaning their act up and becoming independent, impartial and competent. It dosent cost like a challenge in court, (the accreditation body should do all the work) and it should hold IPC to a higher standard, because accreditation deals not only in the exact letter of the law, but in reputation and credibility as well. Message me if you want to start a new thread and run with it. Dr.S I suspect that the "IAS" that anon referred to is not the esteemed "International Accreditation Society", but the Independent(sic) Parking Committee's "Independent(sic) Appeals Service". I also suspect that either the word "accreditation" was inserted randomly and incorrectly in place of whatever word anon might have intended to use, or that it was used correctly, but in the context of a sentence containing entirely different words. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Thu, 14 Aug 2014 - 07:22
Post
#100
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,012 Joined: 28 Jun 2004 From: High Wycombe Member No.: 1,353 |
I suspect that the "IAS" that anon referred to is not the esteemed "International Accreditation Society", but the Independent(sic) Parking Committee's "Independent(sic) Appeals Service". I also suspect that either the word "accreditation" was inserted randomly and incorrectly in place of whatever word anon might have intended to use, or that it was used correctly, but in the context of a sentence containing entirely different words. Indeed. When the IPC was first set up, they had to undergo a 6 month probationary period as an Approved Trade Association (ATA) with the DVLA. They have now 'passed' that and been accredited with full ATA status, meaning that their members can automatically obtain keeper data from the DVLA, no questions asked, as all requests from an ATA member are presumed to have 'reasonable cause'. The change in stance from accepting many appeals based on legal points, to now rejecting almost all of them out of hand, is believed to be entirely coincidental and totally unconnected with their confirmed status. -------------------- We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:01 |