PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Forum know it all
bobthesod
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 277
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,755



On anofher site i was telling a guy who hd a ticket on his car to wait until day 26 before replying and 'amending name/address slightly , just in case they do not contact DVLA a prescribed in the Act. only with this 'misprint' can you be certain they did not comply

This chap insists this is fraud as it is an attempt to not pay the contract 'by deception' and depreive the PPC of their money

I said that all you are doing is making sure the PPC act within POFA, he feels different..ant thoughts or reasons i can correct him
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 5)
Advertisement
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Steve_999
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:21
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,397
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



"depreive"?
Anyway, if at all worried, why not just ask the DVLA who has requested your details (and when)?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:22
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



The PPC must access the DVLA to stand a chance of KL (regardless of a 'timely' appeal). Their greed in saving £2.50 usually takes priority.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:23


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobthesod
post Mon, 17 Jun 2019 - 21:50
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 277
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,755



The point he was making is that by putting down Smyth instead of Smith, that is the act of fraud

Apart from me spelling deprive wrongly! Am i correct in what i told the chap with the windscreen ticket ( who is not the one having a hissy fit that mis spelling a name s a bit 'iffy').
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 09:59
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



How is it and attempt to deprive them, it doesn't change their ability to make the keeper liable unless they choose to.

That assumes they are entitled to anything anyway, signage, standing, contract all have to be in place as well.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 11:09
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



A good rule of thumb is that it is impossible to use reason to correct idiots

You're also fighting the battle that you have completely different starting positions

His position is that a contract and therefore a debt exists that the parking company is unconditionally entitled to recover
Providing a fake name is misleading the parking company regarding the identity of the driver that it contracted with
This situation is covered by case law
I'm not convinced that he understands that parking companies can only recover the payment from the keeper if they meet conditions

Your position is that a debt, owed by the driver, may or may not exist
The issue is whether or not the parking company has a right to recover this payment from the registered keeper
The Protection of Freedoms Act sets out the steps that the parking company must follow
Small variations of the name or address do not in any way mislead the parking company if the person and address can still be identified
They are nothing more than a simple check where it obtained the information to issue the Notice to Keeper

If the parking company saved itself £2-50 by using the information on file instead of meeting the first POFA condition, it has only itself to blame for the consequences

As an aside, I've seen a parking company succeed at POPLA (the independent appeal body) with an argument that it didn't have to apply to the DVLA because the keeper had already provided the information



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 16:01
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here