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! |
|
|
|
Wed, 14 Mar 2018 - 17:15
Post
#121
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
You have to appeal to the parking company first and when they reject then they give you a number to allow you to appeal to POPLA. That's if they are in the BPA. If it's a IPC ticket then forget about appealing to the IAS.
Suggest you post details in the forum so you can get help. This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 - 17:16 |
|
|
Thu, 31 May 2018 - 22:50
Post
#122
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 21 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,620 |
Does GDPR add another nuance to the ignore vs dispute debate? I have two cases on the go at the moment, both with IAS operators, so I have denied and disputed both stating that they are 'not appeals'. It seems to me that after this stage - when it all goes silent and gets a tad boring - is it worth sending subject access requests to all parties currently involved (PPC, Debt Collectors etc)? It can only add to their costs. Also given the state of preparedness of some of the parking companies for GDPR it could potentially cost them an awful lot more if they turn out not to be compliant. Can anyone see any disadvantages to slapping in such data requests in these circumstances? I can only see an upside - it costs them money, it could cost them big time and you get to see all the info they have (or don't have) should it get to a court claim. I guess there will be timing issues - probably best to leave as long as possible so they can dig their own hole a bit deeper. Happy to be dissuaded if there is a downside ....
|
|
|
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 19:21
Post
#123
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 148 Joined: 12 Oct 2016 Member No.: 87,702 |
Does GDPR add another nuance to the ignore vs dispute debate? I have two cases on the go at the moment, both with IAS operators, so I have denied and disputed both stating that they are 'not appeals'. It seems to me that after this stage - when it all goes silent and gets a tad boring - is it worth sending subject access requests to all parties currently involved (PPC, Debt Collectors etc)? It can only add to their costs. Also given the state of preparedness of some of the parking companies for GDPR it could potentially cost them an awful lot more if they turn out not to be compliant. Can anyone see any disadvantages to slapping in such data requests in these circumstances? I can only see an upside - it costs them money, it could cost them big time and you get to see all the info they have (or don't have) should it get to a court claim. I guess there will be timing issues - probably best to leave as long as possible so they can dig their own hole a bit deeper. Happy to be dissuaded if there is a downside .... I would certainly like someone with some regulatory knowledge to respond to this if they could, as me and my colleague were discussing it today. Doesn't the introduction of GDPR affect all sorts of things when it comes to ignoring or not? Especially given that there is such a strong emphasis on companies being able to demonstrate and suitably justify their use and handling of data, and with you there asking them at every step to tell them what they are up to, it certainly cant make things easier? |
|
|
Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 10:07
Post
#124
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 17 Feb 2017 Member No.: 90,337 |
I am back affter over 2 years to start the process all over again with my 3rd Letter of claim for the same eledged parking charge notice as the regersted keeper and at all times I have responded with help from this site.
100% believe do not ignore and if you take advice step by step and will have to put in a bit of time in the process can exspoe what these private parking companies are like when or if ever goes to court and their robo claim prosses using the courts to scare people into paying their debts collect invoices with total disregard for small claims court pre-action protocol. I was not supprised to receive another letter from them (at my new address) as they have 6 years and so kept all correspondence ( advice from here to do so) dug them out and my last letter sent to them requesting basic information over 2 years 4 months ago went un-ansered. They and do try ever trick in the book and know that there is different situations in each cases but end of the day all they are interested is getting as much money out of you and pay up, DON'T just pay up but at the same time Don't ignore put in a bit of time to research, read up, ask advice and will uncover their flaws and total disregard to any prosses all interested is your money. |
|
|
Mon, 22 Mar 2021 - 16:33
Post
#125
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33 Joined: 18 Jun 2012 Member No.: 55,552 |
Personally I've had pretty good success with using the following approach for Private Parking Companies:
1) Write them a letter explaining that I recognise no contract with their company hence I'm disputing their invoice. I then say that in any case any implied contract would be with the driver and I'm only the registered keeper, I'd assume they do not know who the driver was in which case I am able to check my records and let them know, but this will incur an administration charge of around 3 times the value of the parking charge. 2) They'll usually send you another letter once the discounted period has ended and it's now full price. I send the same letter back and add a further line to say that if they continue to send me letters regarding this matter but not providing any clear instructions in line with my terms of business, I will start charging them an outrageous amount for responses 3) They'll then usually send a third letter saying the charge hasn't been paid within 28 days and it will now go up etc. Same letter entails and I now explain to them that they owe me an outrageous amount for responding to two letters. 4) Final demand for money letter follows and I write back and say that I'm unable to offer any further response until my previous invoice is settled. 5) 3 years later and I've heard nothing back |
|
|
Mon, 22 Mar 2021 - 17:30
Post
#126
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
You were lucky, that rarely works.
|
|
|
Sun, 27 Nov 2022 - 18:50
Post
#127
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Many posters invariably chant that you must never ignore PPC tickets/PCNs/invoices/whatever.
Logically, that must be incorrect, as it cannot apply to all circumstances. Many years ago, before the Supreme Court "clarified" the law beyond all recognition by making it nebulous, ignoring was an effective strategy, in much the same way that "unsubscribing" from emails that you never subscribed to let the crooks know that they had found an active email address. Now, there seems to be a much greater chance of being taken to court if you do not pay or successfully appeal, regardless of whether or not you are seen as a viable mark, so, particularly if dealing with one of the more litigious PPCs, simply ignoring is unlikely to make them simply go away. Reasons why ignoring or not ignoring PCNs might be a good idea would seem to depend on a number of factors. Is there any realistic chance of getting the PCN cancelled, whether by the landowner, the PPC or the relevant AOS body's appeal process? Are there any material facts that the PPC would otherwise be unaware of that the driver/keeper would be relying on in a defence if it went to court? Is the keeper likely to be giving away the driver's identity? Is the keeper likely to take the rejection of an appeal as an indication of the strength or otherwise of his defence? Some posters seem to suggest that outstanding PCNs will pretty much invariably result in a court claim. Considering that winning an individual case would generally cost the PPC more in legal fees than they would be likely to win, I would suggest that unless encouraging les autres is sufficiently necessary, the PPCs would be likely to be minded to limit their marketing spend. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2023 - 19:47
Post
#128
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 301 Joined: 30 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,589 |
I would suggest that unless encouraging les autres is sufficiently necessary, the PPCs would be likely to be minded to limit their marketing spend. I tuned in to see how the debate had settled since I last had a private parking ticket to settle. I didn't expect a reference to 18th Century French literature. Great work Andy Foster! |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:53 |