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! |
|
|
|
Thu, 13 Jun 2013 - 21:25
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 3,043 Joined: 16 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,914 |
Have any weak defences been deliberately submitted to POPLA to see if the PPC ultimately takes it to court ? Yes. Someone aimed one directly at UKCPS, I believe they are still waiting for the court claim. Yes am still waiting lol Maybe whilst waiting you could reply to this http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=831273 |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 07:23
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,606 |
Having seen many posts from people who ignored Parking Eye it seems a dead cert that those who ignore after Oct 12 will get MCOL papers. The current advice to ingnorers is to sit it out and wait, right?
I know of 2 people who at the DR+ letter number 2 stage, wrote to PE disputiing the ticket and saying 'see you in court with a strong defence if you fancy having a go'. Neither have heard any more since early April. There is of course still the possibility MCOL papers will arrive later It appears PE have given up on them to concentrate on softer targets. WHat are the thoughts of the seasoned pros here? It could save work submitting defences to simply send a letter telling them it'll be defended if theyre stupid enough to continue |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 07:51
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 262 Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Member No.: 57,180 |
So you think parking eye are going to issue 300k claims a year then ? They issue circa 59k fake tickets a month, and depending what source you use 30%-50% are not paid that equates to 17,700 to 29,500 claims per month every month. It's not going to happen, yes there's more chance of them issuing a claim, but the reality is despite everything there will still be a tiny minority of cases going there.
|
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 07:54
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,007 Joined: 2 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,663 |
This thread ran through the period when PE became 'active' it has a few useful posts from the 'seasoned pros'. The advice not to ignore PE started being issued since some time this winter.
-------------------- 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 - 08:56
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 766 Joined: 1 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,092 |
Would issuing 300,000 claims a year put them in line for being a vexatious litigant?
-------------------- QUOTE I discussed about it with solicitor and he said nothing to worry maximum ÂŁ100 fine. On 30th July 2014 it was our Eid Day and because of Solicitor views I didn't appear into the court and court issued me 6points on driving licence and total ÂŁ745 fine. I paid and got points on licence. PPC 1 - 7 Me Council (bastards!) 3 - 2 Me Pending: 2 |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 09:04
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 431 Joined: 10 Apr 2011 Member No.: 45,808 |
It would thing it would be seen as an abuse of the Small Claims Court. Not least by me!
|
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 09:08
Post
#67
|
|
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 - 09:24
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 262 Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Member No.: 57,180 |
This thread ran through the period when PE became 'active' it has a few useful posts from the 'seasoned pros'. The advice not to ignore PE started being issued since some time this winter. Yes the advice has been adapted for parking eye and CEL, but ignore is still an option providing the people doing so are advised fully on this. I myself do advise to challenge parking eye through popla if its available. The other part of the ignore advice is if you are in Scotland or NI, people are advising that still now, which as it stands is the best advice. But how long will it be when they start trying their arm in that direction? Yes there is no keeper liability there, but they are taking pre pofa ignorers to court now in England and Wales . Has anyone looked at what is involved in going through the sherrifs court? |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 09:59
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,007 Joined: 2 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,663 |
I myself do advise to challenge parking eye through popla if its available. Well, as we also know, PE are doing their best to avoid due appeal process and time OPs out of POPLA 28 days deadline. -------------------- 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 - 10:09
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 262 Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Member No.: 57,180 |
I myself do advise to challenge parking eye through popla if its available. Well, as we also know, PE are doing their best to avoid due appeal process and time OPs out of POPLA 28 days deadline. Yes that is why any challenge should include the fact if they don't give a popla code on a rejection they time themselves out. If things are in writing like that and CoP breaches it can help with small claims if they go there. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 13:05
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,553 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 From: London Member No.: 3,246 |
The other part of the ignore advice is if you are in Scotland or NI, people are advising that still now, which as it stands is the best advice. But how long will it be when they start trying their arm in that direction? Yes there is no keeper liability there, but they are taking pre pofa ignorers to court now in England and Wales . How can it possibly be considered the best advice after all that has happened in E&Ws. It gives a short sighted and short term gain inasmuch as most individuals are left alone (for the time being). What 'ignore' also does (as it did in E&Ws) is that it provides the evidence that the BPA Ltd 'Spin Doctors' need to take to the Scottish Parliament to show that RK liability needs to be implemented. Far far better in Jockland would be a robust challenge from the RK against the lack of a contract and the punitive level of the charge and then once those points are ignored with the next threat-o-gram do not enter into any further correspondence. You've put the PPC on notice and created the audit trail of reasonableness in the unlikely event of subsequent proceedings in the next however many years. How any reasonable person can fail to rationalize this through to it's logical conclusion is quite frankly beyond me. There's a bigger picture thing going on here and to continue to advocate that 'ignore' advice is best practice (even in Jockland) is like the Unicorns dancing in the rain. (Grumpy mood today because it looks like we've waved goodbye to the summer hence the rain analogy) |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 13:50
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 262 Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Member No.: 57,180 |
So why is it being widely suggested here to ignore in Scotland and NI then? I have already said previously that they could adapt their tactics to make claims there as well. If a challenge is the way to go there, the users here and MSE must adapt their advice
|
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 13:56
Post
#73
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,553 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 From: London Member No.: 3,246 |
Because we are a loose militia of unaffiliated members rather than a team all singing from the same corporate hymn sheet. All it takes is for a few brash individuals to assert 'their' view and that can easily then become 'the best advice'
Personally I will also advise that some people should consider paying at the reduced rate - controversial maybe, but if you ask all those PE 'ignorers' who have now received MCOL papers and I bet a good proportion wish they now had. (EDIT: as (no doubt) do those PPP members who are now having to sweep up the resulting mess) This post has been edited by Broadsword: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 13:58 |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 14:08
Post
#74
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
So why is it being widely suggested here to ignore in Scotland and NI then? I have already said previously that they could adapt their tactics to make claims there as well. If a challenge is the way to go there, the users here and MSE must adapt their advice Ignoring the PPC was never the best option in an individual case. However, it was by far the easiest advice to give and the one least likely to result in an OP inadvertently giving the PPC information they ought not to give them. It also meant that nervous or vulnerable OPs didn't have to engage with the PPC. -------------------- 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 - 14:12
Post
#75
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,332 Joined: 10 Mar 2007 From: Midlands Member No.: 11,071 |
Because we are a loose militia of unaffiliated members rather than a team all singing from the same corporate hymn sheet. All it takes is for a few brash individuals to assert 'their' view and that can easily then become 'the best advice' Personally I will also advise that some people should consider paying at the reduced rate - controversial maybe, but if you ask all those PE 'ignorers' who have now received MCOL papers and I bet a good proportion wish they now had. (EDIT: as (no doubt) do those PPP members who are now having to sweep up the resulting mess) As one of the "dirty dozen" I agree, some time it's best to take a small hit whilst others formulate. -------------------- 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".
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved" and do not constitute legal advice. Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 14:17
Post
#76
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,114 Joined: 7 Aug 2009 Member No.: 31,007 |
I still believe that ignoring is a perfectly acceptable way to go for Scotland, Northern Ireland, and indeed even some invoices in England and Wales.
It involves no work for the OP besides filing, avoids giving away any incriminating information as to the driver and likely defence; most PPCs still won't ever 'do' court, the chances of being taken to court over ancient invoices remain extraordinarily remote, and a good defence is even more likely to succeed in these circumstances. Responding with a simple denial letter potentially marks the motorist out as a "hooked fish" for special attention, and not everyone would handle this sort of pressure well. In England and Wales, there is still no 100% guarantee that an appeal to POPLA's part-time law students will succeed (albeit that a Pepipoo appeal is significantly more likely than not to be upheld), and a driver who has appealed and lost is arguably in a worse position than one who has ignored from the outset. Even if the driver is not named in the 'appeal letter', a PPC may invite the court to draw an inference as to the identity of the driver (which is still relevant in Scotland and Northern Ireland), and, in the specific case of 'byelaw 14' tickets, particularly those issued by Northern Rail, there is even a risk that responding may amount to a confession of an offence and so greatly increase the risk of criminal prosecution. I really don't see the Scottish Parliament as being foolish enough to introduce RK liability whilst getting nothing for the motorist in return, given that it was a quid pro quo for the abolition of private clamping and towing, which, of course, is already banned in enlightened Scotland. I certainly wouldn't recommend paying Parking Eye, as the amount demanded is not lawfully due, and paying is to play into the hands of what I consider, with reference to the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, to be a cynical, misleading and aggressive business model, and leave them with even more money to target everyone else. Appealing to POPLA has a good chance of getting the invoice cancelled altogether. This post has been edited by anon45: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 14:23 |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 14:22
Post
#77
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Ignoring the PPC was never the best option in an individual case. However, it was by far the easiest advice to give and the one least likely to result in an OP inadvertently giving the PPC information they ought not to give them. It also meant that nervous or vulnerable OPs didn't have to engage with the PPC. Can I suggest the sticky is updated now? Whilst the ignore advice might work I think it should be suitably qualified? (Especially for ParkingEye perhaps?) -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 14:35
Post
#78
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,553 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 From: London Member No.: 3,246 |
Last post for me on here because I've said my bit - however, lets look at it from another angle.
Out of the hundreds of thousands of private parking tickets issued each year only every a tiny percentage post on here (or MSE or CAG etc) Every single one of those posters is a potential complaint against the PPC, the BPA Ltd and the DVLA and it's the sheer volume of justifiable complaints that will impact on the immoral manner in which some PPCs operate. How many 'ignorers' did 'we' need to clock up before the DVLA stepped in and suspended 'The BPA Six' last year (who are, incidentally, innocent by the way but that's another story) |
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 14:35
Post
#79
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,327 Joined: 10 Jan 2013 Member No.: 59,283 |
I still think the point I made is being missed .Appealling costs the PPC considerable time and money . A tick box POPLA appeal should be set up , an OP directed to it and told what to tick . PPC's use templates it's about time we did so OP's needn't spend valuable hours drafting stuff , most of which will be ignored anyway .
-------------------- Note, I am not legally qualified and not offering legal advice .Liability for application of anything I say lies with the reader
|
|
|
Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 14:42
Post
#80
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,114 Joined: 7 Aug 2009 Member No.: 31,007 |
Ignoring the PPC was never the best option in an individual case. However, it was by far the easiest advice to give and the one least likely to result in an OP inadvertently giving the PPC information they ought not to give them. It also meant that nervous or vulnerable OPs didn't have to engage with the PPC. Can I suggest the sticky is updated now? Whilst the ignore advice might work I think it should be suitably qualified? (Especially for ParkingEye perhaps?) With reference to the sticky, I agree that it ought to be updated, especially as parts of it, seemingly including the reference to the 'Upper Tax Tribunal VCS ruling' (which I understand to have been partly overturned), seem to be slightly out of date. I would also add a further exception to the 'ignore' advice in the case of workplace parking (even if not a company car) and parking by university (or college) students, some of whom have reported being dismissed, denied re-registration or otherwise punished by their employer or university for failure to pay the PPC invoices. However, I do strongly agree with Fredd's assessment in the sticky that most supposed 'byelaw' tickets are actually simple PPC invoices in disguise (and most likely without the 'benefit' of RK liability). Northern Rail do represent the obvious exception to this (and perhaps should be treated as a 'special case' in the sticky), 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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:46 |