PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Can't pay we'll take it away, PPC's and bailiffs
Roverboy
post Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 08:10
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,276
Joined: 4 Apr 2003
From: Northants
Member No.: 20



I watch this and have noticed an increase in the number of high court cases with the bailiffs being sent in to get payment for PPC's.

This week a chap had the bailiffs on his door after £1,900 to settle a debt to a PPC.

Is this the likely consequence of ignoring all letters now, the likes of PE literally taking it all the way, or likely a combination of both.

I have colleagues at work (NHS hospital) who pick up tickets on an almost daily basis in our staff car park for no permit, obstruction etc and ignore all correspondence with a casual "I've been told they're unenforceable".


--------------------
Diesel, the fuel of the future......

Roverboy 2 Apcoa 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 5)
Advertisement
post Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 08:10
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:46
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



There is a regular story type that occurs in news.
Person cops PPC invoices, ignores for whatever reason, builds up "debt", ends up in court, found liable.
In many cases, many thousands to be paid to PPC.

I'm not an expert on PPCs by any stretch but those stories alone suggest that ignoring isn't the best option.
Whether or not it is a viable option would depend on specifics.
Browsing the PPC forum would also suggest that ignoring can be the expensive option.

Whether is likely or not?
Not a scoobie.
That your colleagues aren't having their cases escalated would suggest that the PPC in question isn't one that will take them to court.
But not that they can't.

Which company is it?

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roverboy
post Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:56
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,276
Joined: 4 Apr 2003
From: Northants
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:46) *
There is a regular story type that occurs in news.
Person cops PPC invoices, ignores for whatever reason, builds up "debt", ends up in court, found liable.
In many cases, many thousands to be paid to PPC.

I'm not an expert on PPCs by any stretch but those stories alone suggest that ignoring isn't the best option.
Whether or not it is a viable option would depend on specifics.
Browsing the PPC forum would also suggest that ignoring can be the expensive option.

Whether is likely or not?
Not a scoobie.
That your colleagues aren't having their cases escalated would suggest that the PPC in question isn't one that will take them to court.
But not that they can't.

Which company is it?

The company was (Cr)Apcoa.

The contract has just been given to CP Plus though, who seem to be an unknown as to whether they do court or not. We shall soon see, or my blasé colleagues will !!!!!!

This post has been edited by Roverboy: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 10:59


--------------------
Diesel, the fuel of the future......

Roverboy 2 Apcoa 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:37
Post #4


Member


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



QUOTE (Roverboy @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:56) *
. . . . .

The company was (Cr)Apcoa.

The contract has just been given to CP Plus though, who seem to be an unknown as to whether they do court or not. We shall soon see, or my blasé colleagues will !!!!!!


http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/CP_Plus.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 13:13
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,195
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



CP Plus are certainly not an unknown.

Once a company looses a contract they can suddenly turn rather venal as they no longer have an interest in keeping the landowners customers happy (and by inference the landowner who gives them the contract to operate) going forward, as seen in the Co-op case.


--------------------
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
Steve_999
post Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 18:35
Post #6


Member


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



QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 12:37) *
QUOTE (Roverboy @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:56) *
. . . . .

The company was (Cr)Apcoa.

The contract has just been given to CP Plus though, who seem to be an unknown as to whether they do court or not. We shall soon see, or my blasé colleagues will !!!!!!


http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/CP_Plus.html


Sorry - for Apcoa - link
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 10:22
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