PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Ignore or not?, Time to try to settle this
southpaw82
post Thu, 30 May 2013 - 21:18
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,762
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.


--------------------


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 30 May 2013 - 21:18
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Thu, 30 May 2013 - 23:40
Post #21


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 1,484
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



I'm new to all this (fora) Although I have been a regular visitor to this site, since finding out that my place of work has invited a litigious ppc to enforce the car parks Staff + visitors.
I have followed Ming's case through and a couple of others in the time that I have been looking on from afar.
The advice from the way that I see it, should be for every ppc which is looking to enforce under pofa should be appeal and expect the eye01 Invitation to then appeal at PoPLA.
I do not think that templates are any good at popla although a list of points that should be incorporated into how and what such an appeal could be made up of

For example and to start if applicable:
[indent][/indent]There has been no evidence of independant or informal appeal, a generic template letter rejecting representations citing information not requested or irrelevant to circumstances.

I do wonder how long until it will be that all appeals are accepted by a ppc; because they cannot be bothered to fund PoPLA, And lay the guns on the ignorers.
£27 + Vat Popla
£25 MCOL


--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Broadsword
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 05:18
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,553
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
From: London
Member No.: 3,246



QUOTE (Vinesh Patel @ Thu, 30 May 2013 - 23:06) *
IMO NEVER ignore. Always appeal. Every single claim that is going through at the moment is for people who ignore. appeal to POPLA and don't run the risk of a default judgment ruining your credit rating when you've moved house four years down the line.

"Ignore PE they don't do court" was once a well touted response. Times change, and the only sure way to protect yourself is to always appeal and win at POPLA.

Ignoring may also work against you in any hearing as you have not taken reasonable steps to resolve before court (I.e. putting the PPC to task in your strong appeal).


Absolutely spot on.

And as Bargepole has frequently tried to point out, they all have up to six years to bring a claim. At the moment it's ParkingEye (and CEL), it could just as easily be any other AOS member trawling through their back catalogue of ignorers in the next year or so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 06:17
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,017
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324



Seems (almost) unanimous.

But I'm putting down a marker for "Ignore" - which I will come back to later when I've got some more information.


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 07:19
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,903
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



horses for courses
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...st&p=826230


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 09:03
Post #25


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 2,006
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 31 May 2013 - 08:19) *

I've said it before and will say it again - a claim based on simple contract can be pursued up to 6 years later.

At the moment, it would appear safe to to ignore the likes of EuroCarParks, UKPC and G24, as those companies have no track record of taking people to court. But all that could change in a couple of years' time, when they see the returns PE and CEL are getting from the shedloads of claims they are sending out, and there's no guarantee they won't start digging up old tickets that the OPs have forgotten all about, and possibly moved house and be unaware of default Judgments.

With properly-constructed POPLA appeals succeeding at the rate of 60% and above, you would have to be mad not to go down this route.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 09:42
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,273
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



I have come late to this party as until I moved back to the UK over a year ago I had lived in France for 15 years so the whole private parking industry has grown up while I was gone & I wasn't really aware of it until I was myself caught a few months ago. I am however a quick learner and as all my experience is under POFA I have never thought that ignoring was a good option.

The opportunity to use POPLA to nip in the bud any potential action seems obvious. If we want to provide the simplest advice possible without confusion then that advice must be if the parking event was in England & Wales to wait for the Notice To Keeper then challenge as the keeper following that up with an appeal to POPLA. Waiting for the NTK means that theoretically at least the PPC must be a BOPA AOS member to have obtained registered keeper details from the DVLA plus it provides an additional stick to beat the PPCs with as they seem all but incapable of correctly serving complaint NTKs.

Hedging advice on what to do with ifs & maybes that it's OK to ignore some PPCs but not others just leads to confusion & while the advice to ignore can be wrong I really fail to see how the advice to wait for the NTK then challenge the PPC then appeal POPLA can ever be wrong.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 10:17
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,068
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



Since this seems to be the 'official' thread for this discussion, I will largely re-post my own thoughts from another thread, with a few additions:

I disagree with "appeal to POPLA" as blanket advice, although my view, and the views of others (which may not necessarily concur with my own) is set out in the more detailed discussion at: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77301

As i said in another thread, I consider POPLA to be a creature of the BPA, have no faith in its independence or impartiality;
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...ss-exposed.html
suspect that PPCs would prioritise those who have lost at POPLA for litigation (there has been at least one such case already), and fear that county court judges might be unduly swayed by its biased reasoning if an "independent" assessor had already ruled in favour of the PPC.

I don't think that it is at all likely that courts would penalise 'ignorers', given the above, given that it is not binding on motorists, and given its (at least ostensibly) fettered grounds of appeal. I very much doubt that PPCs will make a habit of reviving five-year-old invoices and suing (they do not normally do so in Scotland or Northern Ireland), and, if they do, such a claim can easily be seen off, with the judgment easily set aside if the defendant never received the court papers.

At the moment, it is true that POPLA upholds most appeals, and upholds the vast majority (although not quite all) of Pepipoo-approved 'strong' appeals. However, I can forsee a time, not too far away, when the BPA, as POPLA's paymaster, puts pressure on POPLA to dismiss Pepipoo appeals based primarily on the absence of landowner contract, and the saying that "he who pays the piper calls the tune" is likely to be applicable here. This forum, would, in my opinion, look foolish if it advised OPs to "always appeal", only for POPLA to start rejecting Pepipoo appeals, followed by PPCs taking such cases to court.

Certainly, POPLA is not even applicable to Scotland, Northern Ireland, supposed 'byelaw 14' tickets, or to non-BPA members in England and Wales, so appealing to POPLA is not even possible in these cases. If:
a) the invoice is not Schedule 4 compliant, or if Schedule 4 does not apply for some other reason (e.g. vehicle parked on airport land subject to byelaws) and ;
b) the RK was genuinely not the driver,
then appealing most likely gives away the identity of the driver, and a court claim against a RK who was not driving has very little chance of succeeding in these circumstances. Appealing may also alert the PPC to the lines of argument used by the motorist, and allow them to tailor their court claim accordingly, with (possibly bogus) case law citations.

Even if the RK was the driver, it is potentially another hurdle for the PPC to overcome if Schedule 4 has not been complied with, and appealing potentially removes this hurdle from the PPC and allows them to bring a claim directly against the driver. Where Schedule 4 has not been complied with, PPCs are likely to be wary of bringing a claim to court, in case the RK was not driving, or in case they cannot prove that the defendant was driving even on the balance of probabilities.

In the case of Northern Rail 'PPNs', I would either pay at once (the default option), or ignore (only if truly ready and willing to face a long, hard fight as far as Crown Court and even beyond), but never 'appeal', since this gives away the identity of the driver, and virtually all such 'appeals' are rejected by Northern Rail.

I would always ignore PPC invoices masquerading as 'byelaw 14' tickets, since there is no chance a PPC would want a judge to take a good look at such a misleading commercial practice, and identifying the driver potentially runs the remote risk that he or she is prosecuted under byelaw 14 by the TOC operating the land in question.

As regards Parking Eye, I would grudgingly make a 'soft appeal'. followed by a 'hard (Pepipoo) appeal' to POPLA, with the intention of then ignoring an adverse POPLA ruling.

In other cases, I would make a case-by-case assessment of whether to appeal or ignore, taking various factors into account, including the OP's attitude and willingness to put effort into appealing, the circumstances of the parking, and the propensity of the PPC to issue court claims. Some PPCs will never issue court claims, in which case going to POPLA is simply a waste of the OP's valuable time (albeit that it also wastes the PPC's time and money, which is a good thing).

I accept that mine seems to be a minority view. However, I am always wary of 'blanket advice', whether it be in relation to criminal offences, council decriminalised parking, or PPC invoices. Giving blanket advice to always appeal also runs the risk that the OP may not fully understand or properly follow the advice, resulting in POPLA losses and an increased chance of being taken to court, and to say that POPLA will "always uphold" a POPLA appeal is misleading advice, in my opinion.

In some cases, (such as Northern Rail), appealing could be downright dangerous to the OP and amount to an outright confession of a byelaw 14(1) or 14(2) offence, and, in other cases, Schedule 4 does not apply, so why give away unnecessary information given that the situation is then essentially the same as it is in Scotland and Northern Ireland?

In short, there may be times when appealing is not the best option, and I personally credit most OPs, presumably being competent adults, with enough intelligence not to be confused by advice that differs depending on the circumstances; after all, advice in other sections of the forum already differs depending on the circumstances- to give an example, we don't advise all OPs given a police FPN to pay up automatically, but check the OPs circumstances first, notwithstanding that, in most cases, it would be the prudent thing to do.

If the general advice is to appeal to POPLA, then any sticky ought to clearly set out exceptions and drawbacks. Exceptions might include:
a) invoices issued in Scotland/ Northern Ireland, or invoices where the OP lives in Scotland (possibly also Northern Ireland;
b) invoices issued by a non-AOS member;
c) invoices purporting (truthfully or otherwise) to be a 'byelaw 14' penalty';
d) invoices issued by firms that have never done court, and are never likely to;
e) invoices where the RK is happy to truthfully name the (Scottish or foreign) driver to the PPC, and then leave it there, since liability has been transferred;

Given the number of possible exceptions, it is surely easier to continue with the existing sticky and tailored advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 10:33
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,273
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (anon45 @ Fri, 31 May 2013 - 11:17) *
If the general advice is to appeal to POPLA, then any sticky ought to clearly set out exceptions and drawbacks. Exceptions might include:
a) invoices issued in Scotland/ Northern Ireland, or invoices where the OP lives in Scotland (possibly also Northern Ireland;
b) invoices issued by a non-AOS member;
c) invoices purporting (truthfully or otherwise) to be a 'byelaw 14' penalty';
d) invoices issued by firms that have never done court, and are never likely to;
e) invoices where the RK is happy to truthfully name the (Scottish or foreign) driver to the PPC, and then leave it there, since liability has been transferred;

I agree with most of this but I don't think that not appealing just because a firm has never done court is a good option. Just because they haven't done court doesn't mean they won't in the future & now that there is a quasi-independent body there is at least a point to appealing as it will stop the hassle with threatening letters from debt collectors & solicitors. Many people find the ever escalating hysteria of these very stressful despite all the reassurances given that they can just be ignored which in any case has turned out to be untrue with regard to PE.

Waiting to appeal until the NTK is received should also weed out any non-AOS member.

WRT cases taken to court after a POPLA appeal is lost I can't believe that county court judges will be unduly swayed by POPLA's biased reasoning when it is revealed that the "independent" assessor who ruled in favour of the PPC is a moonlighting law student. Until POPLA is put on a statutory basis like PATAS it's always going to be very easy to portray it as the biased kangaroo court of a trade body that lacks credibility or independence.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chippy365
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 10:36
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 17 May 2013
Member No.: 61,969



You mention land ownership issues may change. Even if it does, the fact is that there are basic contract law principles such as unfair terms, punitive charges, etc. that the BPA can't change.

You say that PPCs are unlikely to go back and revive old ignorers, but I believe we have already seen this happen and at that point those people can't even appeal to POPLA.

To give advice to ignore is delaying the inevitable onslaught of cases. POPLA may not be ideal but it is binding on the PPC, ignoring the PPC allows them to take you to court bypassing POPlA and creating work and stress for those working on defences.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Concrete Jungle
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 10:40
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 16 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,147



I have dealt with a number of speculative 'claims' going back to the middle of 2011. As the tactics of the PPCs change, so must the advice given out on here.


--------------------
VCS v Ibbotson
Excel v Hetherington - Jakeman
ParkingEye v Riyaz Patel
Mayhook v National Car Parks & Nigel Barrington - Fuller

When posting on pepipoo do not reveal any information that may enable private parking companies to identify you. They DO trawl this forum. Redact your name, address, pcn number, date of alleged contravention, date on speculative invoice, vehicle reg, vehicle picture, time you allegedly entered car park, time you allegedly left car park, time limit on the car park, the amount of time you allegedly overstay and the address / location of the car park. Also redact any barcodes or QR codes (if present)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 15:17
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,068
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Fri, 31 May 2013 - 11:33) *
WRT cases taken to court after a POPLA appeal is lost I can't believe that county court judges will be unduly swayed by POPLA's biased reasoning when it is revealed that the "independent" assessor who ruled in favour of the PPC is a moonlighting law student. Until POPLA is put on a statutory basis like PATAS it's always going to be very easy to portray it as the biased kangaroo court of a trade body that lacks credibility or independence.


I agree that courts *ought* not to place any great weight on a ruling of a 'biased kangaroo court', although one never knows, but this is precisely why I consider it to be very unlikely that a court will penalise a defendant for having 'failed to appeal to POPLA' or even ignored the PPC altogether.

I also agree with chippy365 that there are plenty of other reasons besides 'absence of landowner contract' (such as punitive charges) as to why the appeal *ought* to be upheld, but note that POPLA seems to be (at least usually) rejecting these reasons so they aren't much use at POPLA. It wouldn't surprise me if the BPA starts telling its members to supply copies of the landowner contract to POPLA in order to "win", in which case even Pepipoo defences are unlikely to succeed at POPLA, even though they would succeed in court.

Some OPs might be terrified by the prospect of 'debt collectors' and endless threatograms, and these should indeed be advised to appeal; however, many others are happy to ignore all this, and the latter should not be scared into creating unnecessary work for themselves by wasting time in appealing.

A tiny number of PPCs may be dragging out old invoices for speculative court action in the hope of obtaining a default judgment; the chances of this remain very remote indeed; most of these old invoices would not have been eligible for a POPLA appeal in any case due to pre-dating October 2012, and in my view this alone is not a compelling reason to appeal.

Many posters suggest that appealing to POPLA will reduce the workload; if a case is appealed and lost, then a motorist may well end up not only being taken to court (example: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79002) If so, the 'onslaught of cases' has merely been delayed rather than stopped, and the motorist is probably in a weaker position than if he or she had ignored the invoice in the first place. The linked thread also illustrates that Vinesh Patel is mistaken when he says that every single case on Pepipoo at the moment involves 'ignorers'.

I look forward to emanresu's promised post in due course; I am feeling rather lonely in suggesting that POPLA is not the 'magic bullet' it is seemingly being portrayed as.

The advice has already changed in response to changing PPC tactics; from 'ignore' to 'ignore or appeal depending on circumstances', and I consider this to be sufficient. I don't recall anyone saying that "Parking Eye never do court"; certainly not since they claimed thousands of pounds from a defendant and were awarded £15+ court costs (all pre-POPLA).

This post has been edited by anon45: Fri, 31 May 2013 - 15:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chippy365
post Fri, 31 May 2013 - 17:44
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 17 May 2013
Member No.: 61,969



Actually POPLA has evolved somewhat and do accept the contract law arguments, in the main. It's all about wording the appeal carefully and properly. Many fail because they do not address the issues correctly. Simply put, many appeals try to mitigate the circumstances or use a template letter without context. Template letters are a template of ideas that can be brought to POPLA's attention. Parking Eye, for example will try to argue that it's not a penalty based on breach of contract, but on the balance of probabilities, it is that. PE even state to DVLA that it is for a breach of terms and conditions.

If PPCs see that PE and the other vultures are making money by pursuing old ignorers, then they will do the same, because they are all vultures. What you do by telling people to ignore, is potentially put that user at risk of being taken to court in the future. At least by going to POPLA, you have an opportunity to end it, and if the POPLA route fails then a court should by rights sit with a well constructed defence.

As it stands, I'd be happy to take some cases on in the future, once I've dealt with my own speculative invoice.
Having advice depending on the PPC is confusing for newbies and always subject to change. Get them to appeal and there is more chance of the invoice going away for good.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Sun, 2 Jun 2013 - 06:00
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,017
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Parking Support Groups
Member No.: 13,324



Here is the job spec of a POPLA appeal assessor which might be useful when checking you appeal.

Given the 1st point (key one?) is to be independent, I wonder why the BPA are setting up a scrutiny panel?


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kirkbyinfurnessl...
post Sun, 2 Jun 2013 - 06:07
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,413
Joined: 14 May 2013
From: Sheffield
Member No.: 61,888



QUOTE (emanresu @ Sun, 2 Jun 2013 - 07:00) *
Here is the job spec of a POPLA appeal assessor which might be useful when checking you appeal.

Given the 1st point (key one?) is to be independent, I wonder why the BPA are setting up a scrutiny panel?


Where is the mention of the scrutiny panel


--------------------
www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
matt285
post Sun, 2 Jun 2013 - 18:19
Post #35


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 3,043
Joined: 16 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,914



QUOTE (emanresu @ Sun, 2 Jun 2013 - 07:00) *
Here is the job spec of a POPLA appeal assessor which might be useful when checking you appeal.

Given the 1st point (key one?) is to be independent, I wonder why the BPA are setting up a scrutiny panel?


There seems to be an awfully limited requirement of actual legal training for this post to my liking... - which could explain some of the results that POPLA assessors have communicated!

On the other hand though, I'm also slightly worried by the fact that they presumably go for law graduates before entering into a trainee contract, i.e. those guys should definitely know the contract law 1x1 - and again some of the POPLA results don't appear to reflect this. Maybe we've got a big breed of law graduates who haven't really got any clue about law?

But very interesting to find out about this - did you apply for it then? biggrin.gif If you could be an Assessor from home then I would seriously consider this, could fit in well with my other jobs and could probably swing justitia's pendulum back into equilibrium...

This post has been edited by matt285: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 - 18:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Broadsword
post Sun, 2 Jun 2013 - 19:33
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,553
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
From: London
Member No.: 3,246



QUOTE (matt285 @ Sun, 2 Jun 2013 - 19:19) *
[There seems to be an awfully limited requirement of actual legal training for this post to my liking... - which could explain some of the results that POPLA assessors have communicated!

On the other hand though, I'm also slightly worried by the fact that they presumably go for law graduates before entering into a trainee contract, i.e. those guys should definitely know the contract law 1x1 - and again some of the POPLA results don't appear to reflect this. Maybe we've got a big breed of law graduates who haven't really got any clue about law?

But very interesting to find out about this - did you apply for it then? biggrin.gif If you could be an Assessor from home then I would seriously consider this, could fit in well with my other jobs and could probably swing justitia's pendulum back into equilibrium...


Matt, don't take this the wrong way but can you just clarify something for me?

Are you a consumer or a PPC employee/representative?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samjam
post Thu, 6 Jun 2013 - 14:46
Post #37


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 6 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,517



Also consider that the driver at the time may be 17 and not able to enter into a contract in any case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
matt285
post Thu, 6 Jun 2013 - 15:19
Post #38


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 3,043
Joined: 16 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,914



QUOTE (Broadsword @ Sun, 2 Jun 2013 - 20:33) *
Matt, don't take this the wrong way but can you just clarify something for me?

Are you a consumer or a PPC employee/representative?


No worries mate - I've got nothing to do with PPCs -- well apart from the fact that I have recently won my first POPLA appeal.

My interest in this whole thing is I'm currently studying law part time... and am still surprised what's possible with regards to ignoring basic contract law principles.

Send me a PM if you wish to discuss further.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 6 Jun 2013 - 15:38
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,262
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



On a slightly different angle but related.

When 'appealing' what's the opinion on naming the driver or not? Specifically on the basis that they've met Schedule 4 requirements to pursue the RK...

Upside is that they can only pursue the amount on the NtK but downside is how a judge (if it ever got there) would perceive the lack of driver notification (not that there is any legal obligation to provide it) and the case then presented. For example, is it a bit perverse to argue about poor signage/lack of contract if the RK was not the driver?

Of course, the RK should still demand that the PPC demonstrate that the amount is an actual loss (assuming breach of contract angle).

Views?


--------------------
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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
matt285
post Thu, 6 Jun 2013 - 15:55
Post #40


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 3,043
Joined: 16 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,914



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 6 Jun 2013 - 16:38) *
On a slightly different angle but related.

When 'appealing' what's the opinion on naming the driver or not? Specifically on the basis that they've met Schedule 4 requirements to pursue the RK...

Upside is that they can only pursue the amount on the NtK but downside is how a judge (if it ever got there) would perceive the lack of driver notification (not that there is any legal obligation to provide it) and the case then presented. For example, is it a bit perverse to argue about poor signage/lack of contract if the RK was not the driver?

Of course, the RK should still demand that the PPC demonstrate that the amount is an actual loss (assuming breach of contract angle).

Views?


I think you would sooner or later run into difficulty without disclosing you're the driver. Especially when it comes to incorporation of terms, entering into the contract, and unfair contract terms - as well as the breach of contract / liquidated damages aspect you've already mentioned. I would rather say that I was the driver and then fight the fight properly, instead of trying to hide.

Also, you need to remember who you will be giving advice to - the general public who is normally very unaware of the peculiarities of contract law. So I would suggest "keeping it simple" should be a better approach than trying to catch the PPC on niceties. Also remember that the invoices are unenforceable due to so many different points so I don't think you will need to try and bother everyone with lots of tiny nuances.

Obviously this "keeping it simple" is not the "keeping it simple" that POPLA suggests by not covering legal points at all (by the way I find it totally inacceptable that they suggest this should be the case since they have shown that they only really bother to investigate cases IF you cover all the legal requirements). It rather means cover all the legal points that the PPC needs to show, and this should already have it in the bag.

May I add one aspect to this: There appear to be lots of people who come to this forum and are pretty frightened about the whole process - I think it may not always be the best idea to give them the first advice of "wait until you get a NtK". If someone s##ts themselves because they have received a "penalty" then maybe it would be better to take action directly and resolve the issue (appeal and POPLA) rather than resorting to the waiting tactic.

Again, this means that you may lose reasons of appeal due to errors on the NtK but then again, there are normally so many other points that kill those claims that it may be less of a burden for people who are frightened to not have to wait up to three months.

Just my two cents' worth, I'm aware I've started using this forum relatively recently.

This post has been edited by matt285: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 - 15:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 14th November 2018 - 12:21
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.