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: 28,443
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  « < 4 5 6 7 >  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 119)
Advertisement
post Thu, 30 May 2013 - 21:18
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
jewels2009
post Sat, 30 Aug 2014 - 14:56
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 780
Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Member No.: 63,869



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 12 Aug 2014 - 22:35) *
QUOTE (Dr Science @ Sat, 9 Aug 2014 - 16:41) *
QUOTE (anon45 @ Mon, 4 Aug 2014 - 18:05) *
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.


Which authorative body regulates Anon's or is this the between lines card as its derives from the formal body?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sat, 30 Aug 2014 - 15:47
Post #102


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,284
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (jewels2009 @ Sat, 30 Aug 2014 - 15:56) *
Which authorative body regulates Anon's or is this the between lines card as its derives from the formal body?


In English?


--------------------
Andy

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lawrence
post Sat, 13 Sep 2014 - 10:25
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 13 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,211



Am I missing something here?

You will be in the same boat EVEN IF you lose your appeal

So surely the correct course of action is 'appeal' THEN 'ignore' (if appeal is lost)

This way you at least have the chance of winning at appeal (using GPEOL and/or Punitive amount and/or Unfair practice etc.)

SO what if you lose appeal. Then you simply ignore all future letters unless they are court papers, which is EXACTLY what you would be doing if you went the 'ignore' route in the 1st place.

N.B. this line of thinking may only work with BPA PPC's if you think that the IPC appeals is not possible to win and thus might count against any court hearing.

However from the evidence on this site it appears that a vvvv small % ever go to court so appeal then ignore might be relevant whichever assoc is involved

This post has been edited by Lawrence: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 - 10:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Wed, 8 Oct 2014 - 09:50
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,063
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



It now appears from the latest Prankster blog that, under intense pressure from a certain highly litigious PPC, the BPA/ POPLA requirement for charges to be a GPEOL is to be dropped and replaced by a supposed requirement for the charge to be "commercially justified", seemingly based on the erroneous belief that the PE v Beavis judgment is case law (albeit that many county court judges already seem to be acting as if it is).

This represents a major U-turn, since many POPLA assessors have effectively said in their recent decisions that HHJ Maloney erred on the issue of "commercial justification", or, to give more precise detail from a recent POPLA ruling:
QUOTE (POPLA)
Secondly, I do not accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. There have been contradictory decisions from the County Court presented to POPLA, but in each case in the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, which is approved at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty: “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”. This supports the fundamental principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory: the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed. The courts have been unwilling to uphold clauses designed to deter breach. The courts have departed from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss and recognised that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible. However, it remains the case that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive. In this case, it is clear that the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter breaches of the terms of parking. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified. Given that the charge is not commercially justified, nor has it been shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, I must find that it is not enforceable. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.


This is exactly what I always expected to happen from the very start- the days of getting invoices quashed easily by 'appealing to POPLA' are likely to be over, so we may need to consider alternatives. If the idea of 'service addresses' is considered to be unworkable or unwise, (on which I do not have the knowledge to express an opinion), then this may mean reverting to 'ignore everything except court papers', or, in the case of the more litigious PPCs, sending a short letter denying liability, then ignoring everything except court papers.

This post has been edited by anon45: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 - 09:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BCR
post Wed, 15 Oct 2014 - 23:35
Post #105


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 17 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,147



As an observation, whilst the emphasis in this ruling is on commercial justification, I do see that:
1. The charge was not commercially justified leading to a successful appeal anyway.
2. Interestingly, the ruling says "nor has it been shown to be a GPEOL". So, basically appealing to both commercial justification and GPEOL.

Moreover, I am not sure of the rationale for reverting to the advice "ignore (except court papers)"? Years ago, the advice was "ignore (except court papers)" on the grounds that most PPCs broke so many laws and regulations in their PCNs, so they just went around issuing wholly unenforceable invoices and avoided the courts in a shambolic and uncoordinated way. Also, appealing to the PPC just meant that they had their hooks in you and they could really hassle you! More recently, the rules and regulations were tightened up with an appeals process via POPLA and the RK being liable for the charge (and the fact that some PPCs such as PE took the opportunity to use the new framework to go after people in the courts), so the advice changed to "ignore or appeal to POPLA depending on circumstances". The thinking being something like: they're less likely to let it drop if you ignore them and anyway there's a proper appeals process now with a 2/3 success rate, so there's no merit in avoiding the PPC hooks (as it were). And now the very latest development seems to be that there is a POPLA bias towards commercial justification (which pretty much amounts to higher charges). What I'm not following here is why that means a reversion to "ignore (except court papers)"? Is the thinking simply that you're less likely to be successful with POPLA, so why bother with them? Just curious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Thu, 18 Dec 2014 - 13:59
Post #106


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,063
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



The Prankster has produced another detailed post outlining, with extensive evidence, that the "I"AS is a 'kangaroo court' which is 'not fit for purpose'.

To my mind, this further strengthens the argument against "appealing" to the "I"AS- I would instead advise, in relation to PPCs which are IPC members, sending a short letter denying liability (not an "appeal", since this implicitly recognises the authority of the PPC), then ignoring everything except actual court papers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Big Fluffy One
post Tue, 13 Jan 2015 - 08:55
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
From: Leicester
Member No.: 53,051



This thread seems to have died a death without any conclusions.

The windscreen flyer says that more often than not the best course of action is to ignore...the main gist of the forum advice is not to ignore.

Could I suggest that the flyer is changed and that PCN recipients are simply directed here for the best advice to fit their circumstances?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yiam Cross
post Tue, 8 Sep 2015 - 15:55
Post #108


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2010
Member No.: 34,952



Is there an up to date outline of the best procedure to follow with private parking tickets, preferrably with some example letters?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 8 Sep 2015 - 16:10
Post #109


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,608
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Yiam Cross @ Tue, 8 Sep 2015 - 16:55) *
Is there an up to date outline of the best procedure to follow with private parking tickets, preferrably with some example letters?

Best to start a new thread with your specific circumstances. Generic template letters can be very damaging.

In general, ignoring is not recommended but it depends on many factors - particularly which PPC.


--------------------
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
Steve_999
post Tue, 8 Sep 2015 - 16:13
Post #110


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,008
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (Yiam Cross @ Tue, 8 Sep 2015 - 16:55) *
Is there an up to date outline of the best procedure to follow with private parking tickets, preferrably with some example letters?


Simply post as a new topic your question in the Private Parking Tickets & Clamping forum, preferably with as much detail (including scans of and tickets and correspondence received) as possible.

This post has been edited by Steve_999: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 - 16:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rallyman72
post Tue, 8 Sep 2015 - 17:08
Post #111


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,330
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
From: On a train
Member No.: 3,385



Yiam, welcome to a Quatloosian (I suspect).


--------------------
The accident was caused by cockpit thrombosis - a dangerous clot between seatback and steering wheel ...

1. Read this first
2. Nip Wizard
Parking tickets - council - 0, Rallyman - 1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 09:11
Post #112


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



What are grounds of appeal when,for example you park in a private car park like SIP parking and get a ticket for not having a ticket?
What I fail to understand is that you have not paid for a ticket but at the same time you get a Parking Charge Notice that has technical errors(I remember someone suggesting that appealing on the ground that their charge are too high £25 in 24 hour ,£100 in 14 days and so on is a good ground for appeal)

So what should be done if a person didn't pay for the ticket and received a Parking charge notice which is unlawful itself? would the unlawful parking charge notice nullify the fact that you didn't buy a ticket?Should the Parking charge notice be ignored or not in those circumstances?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 09:19
Post #113


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,759
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



you either buy the correct ticket , or pay additional costs by not doing so , this site is not about how to circumvent a legitimate company that charge a fee for a genuine service , its here to help people who have been ripped off by con artists

no paying for a parking ticket , is the same as shoplifting from woolworths
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 09:32
Post #114


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



you're absolutely right freddy1, my concern is about when we appeal on the grounds of them being wrong and us being wrong as well.

I remember on this forum someone suggested that if you buy a ticket and are late (an hour late etc) and get a ticket; you can appeal on the grounds of unfair contract(as they are asking you to pay to much for it)

Point is, even in those circumstances the driver is wrong yet we appeal on the grounds of an unlawful parking charge notice (so technically both the driver and parking company are wrong) but why does the fact that the parking charge notice was unlawful nullifies the fact that the driver overstayed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 09:49
Post #115


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,759
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



ok , parking co hand it back to the landowner who then takes you to court for trespass on his land
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cpu2007
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 09:55
Post #116


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 22 May 2011
Member No.: 46,879



so in relation to the scenario I have explained in my previous post(buying a ticket then accidentally overstaying and receiving an unlawful parking charge notice), that would constitute as trespassing after the time has expired right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Tue, 6 Oct 2015 - 12:31
Post #117


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,063
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



This isn't directly relevant to the current discussion point, but, in relation to the broader question of whether or not to 'appeal' to the "I"AS, it is notable that the Prankster now strongly advises against such appeals, as also does Schoolrunmum/ Couponmad.

The Prankster has devoted the vast majority of his recent posts to exposing the "I"AS as the biased kangaroo court that it is, showing it is working with PPCs to deny RKs the right of appeal, and to then insist that RKs must pay £15 for the dubious privilege of agreeing to be bound by the inevitable rejection, and illustrating how, despite having now being granted "ADR" status by the Government, it grossly fails to meet the substantive criteria for such status.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingcharge
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 22:45
Post #118


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 21 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,697



So, I started out looking out for anything recent re UKPC that was relatively recent and then ended up on the ignore or not? thread.

As it's Saturday evening its slightly worrying that I have spent several hours reading through most if not all of the thread and yet still almost have the will to live.

Anyway this a great forum with some great posts from some seemingly knowledgeable people and some interesting arguements and topics including and finishing at the current time with ADR.

Now the problem I am having in looking for some advice is that there are several types of "charge" for various alleged contractual breaches and for each type of breach the ignore or not? may differ and in certain circumstances I am not convinced that to adhere to the self regulated appeals process is the best option.

If I am right in the majority of cases where appeal processes are available, whether binding or not, in these cases they are not, any appeal process and its outcomes can be presented in evidence at any subsequent formal proceedings, in this case the civil courts. Similarly the burden of proof it that of "balance of probability". Where any formal court proceeding occur, prior to any hearing those businesses making any claim against an individual present the evidence they have to substantiate that claim. In plain English they are required to present their evidence. It is then for the individual to rebut, counterclaim etc.

However, in the case of a notice with reference to "vehicle driver/owner left site" the ticket provides no evidence. Further the issuer, in this case UKPC's website merely provides images of vehicle in a car park (private land) which is free parking for customers using the retailers within the boundry.

Now, on that basis. Why would anyone wish to follow an appeal process where they have not been provided with any evidence to substantiate the claim that they had "left site"? You are entitled to be provided with all evidence prior to appealing. Otherwise this self-regulatory appeals process is instilling its own reverse "burden of proof."Simplistically you dont have to show your hand until they have disclosed their evidence. Otherwise you are almost telling them what the basis of your appeal is before you know what you are appealing against.

My view, and I am happy to be corrected on the basis of I have only spent a few hours on here, is that as highlighted, the appeal process is a bit of farce in the circumstances to which I refer. That you should not engage in the process without having first requested that all evidence in support of their claim against you is provided, so that you can make an informed decision whether any initial or subsequent appeal, or formal civil proceeding are likely to be successful or not.

In other words. Where is your "proof" and what evidence do you have? Otherwise without that, you are appealing against unknown.

Now, thats a bit brief I know, and I have missed a lot of good points that are included in the suggested pro formas etc but just to help a little, and please don't shoot me down but I have come across various media reports concerning investigations by media sources and Trading Standards etc, reference to Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs etc. Well I am one of those Trading Standards Officers with over 30 years experience in both Consumer criminal and civil law and also provide ADR for a couple of national businesses. And if anyone came to me for advice I would simply be saying firstly request "full disclosure" so we know what we are dealing with and then we can decide where to go from there.

So dont ignore! but request the evidence before deciding what to do
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 22:48
Post #119


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,641
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
However, in the case of a notice with reference to "vehicle driver/owner left site" the ticket provides no evidence. Further the issuer, in this case UKPC's website merely provides images of vehicle in a car park (private land) which is free parking for customers using the retailers within the boundry.

Yep, agreed. they have no evidence and rely upon a numpty appealing saying who was driving and dropping themselves in it, or another numpty ignoring them. Either will do, for UKPC, and they do try some court claims for people who ignore or muck up the appeal.

QUOTE
Now, on that basis. Why would anyone wish to follow an appeal process where they have not been provided with any evidence to substantiate the claim that they had "left site"?
To avoid a stressful court claim case.

UKPC can be easy to beat at POPLA. All you need to bear in mind it not to name the driver, and to appeal as 'registered keeper' around day 26 from the date of the event, which is a tried & tested tactic v UKPC which almost always makes them completely forget to serve a 'Notice to Keeper'. The keeper then wins at POPLA because of that omission.

Very easy, and explained here on MSE:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

Diarise day 26, don't go past it. the timing is deliberate.

Then submit the template appeal online; don't alter it. Only choose 'registered keeper' in UKPC's drop-down menu and if they write bleating that they want to know who was driving, ignore that and await the rejection letter & POPLA code. then go back to read post #3 there about how to win at POPLA as a registered keeper, when no NTK was served.

Scam over.

And complain to your MP afterwards, the more MP complaints about this industry, the merrier right now, due to the Bill proposed in the coming months.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Wed, 14 Mar 2018 - 16:01
Post #120


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,048
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (st.bangkok @ Wed, 14 Mar 2018 - 14:44) *
I just tried to start an appeal on POPLA but my PCN number is not valid? Is Popla for council government tickets only? The one i have is a private land claim against me......car park with ANPR at entry and exit and i over stayed the 2 hour max.


http://absolutecarparking.co.uk/project/what-is-popla/


If ( as it appears) you got a Parking Ticket and want advice you should have posted in the Private Parking Section with images or scans of the paperwork you have with the appropriate details blanked out . A Mod will move it for you

This post has been edited by StuartBu: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 - 16:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 18th August 2018 - 06:12
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.