IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

KNOCK KNOCK Mrs May, anyone at home ??? what are you doing about these CCJ's

1131416181934

Comments

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 131,404 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    edited 7 August 2020 at 2:29PM
    Bump - to show you all Carthesis' effort sent to his MP this week:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71396050#post71396050

    Now is the moment to strike while this iron is hot. Write your own version if you prefer, attaching copies of the rubbish thrown at you by the parking firm and telling your MP how awful the industry is, 'credit clamping' people with CCJs issued to old addresses from years ago, or now upping the ante and using & abusing the (entirely different and unusual) Supreme Court 'Beavis case' and abusing MCOL to scare victims into paying 3 figure sums, just like clampers used to extort.

    Even if you do not have a court claim yet but just a PCN or debt letters, write to your MP this week - and send a copy to Mrs May, snail mail, so the post thumps on a desk.

    Demand to know why the British public are being held to ransom like this by an 'industry' which operates on the very edge of the law yet they got the 'seal of approval' from seemingly out of touch Supreme Court Judges in the shocking decision handed down in National Consumers' week (Nov 2015) in the ParkingEye v Beavis case. This widely-perceived insult to the British public (which shocked the Consumers' Association who had supported Mr Beavis) came in the same parliamentary session as the Consumer Rights Act was enacted.

    Something is wrong somewhere when the so-called 'Protection of Freedoms' Act 2012' incorporated a change in law to grant carte blanche for this 'profession' to sue people for six years, whether they were even driving the vehicle or not.

    Something is wrong somewhere when 50,000 court claims were started by private parking firms last year, compared to under 900 in 2011 - yet 'reducing the burden on the courts' was the BPA 'excuse' for lobbying for keeper liability. They got what they wished for - keeper liability but based on what exactly...? The Ministry of Justice can confirm the figures, the industry's greed is out of control and 'credit clamping' (CCJs - money for old rope) is far worse than car clamping was.

    Something is wrong somewhere when the DVLA hand out keeper data like candy for £2.50 (at a loss - funded by the taxpayer) and allege when they get any complaint (while sweeping it under the very high carpet) that any policing of these firms falls to the BPA and IPC.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • I have just sent off an email to my MP, will await his reply in case there is more I can add to that letter I sent him to the one I'm going to send to Theresa May. I have mentioned about ex clampers taking up private parking to make their ill gotten gains that way instead!
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    A reminder for everyone
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 131,404 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    And again.

    Don't forget that the BPA and IPC will be lobbying the Government to dumb down any plans against PPC World.

    Send those letters, this month, NOW. Let the consumers' voices get louder again.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Fruitcake
    Fruitcake Posts: 58,223 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    edited 5 October 2016 at 3:09AM
    Mrs May and local MPs should be informed that appeals are being refused outwith The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015. Quotes from the Act are in blue. My comments are in black.

    Schedule 3
    Requirements that a competent authority must be satisfied that the body meets
    Expertise, Independence and Impartiality

    3.The body—
    (a)
    ensures that an ADR official possesses a general understanding of the law and the necessary knowledge and skills relating to the out-of-court or judicial resolution of consumer disputes, to be able to carry out his or her functions competently;

    3 a.

    It has been proven time and time again that both new PoPLA and IAS assessors have no idea about the law. Byelaws, EA 2010, "the reasonable assumption that the keeper is the driver" are all cases that prove that the assessors have no knowledge of UK law.

    Transparency
    5.The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a durable medium—
    (a)
    its contact details, including postal address and e-mail address;
    (b)
    a statement that it has been approved as an ADR entity by the relevant competent authority once this approval has been granted;
    (c)
    its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;


    5 c.

    The IPC/IAS must name their assessors. They don't, therefore they breach the Act.

    Grounds to refuse to deal with a dispute
    13.The body may only refuse to deal with a domestic dispute or a cross-border dispute which it is competent to deal with on one of the following grounds—
    (a)
    prior to submitting the complaint to the body, the consumer has not attempted to contact the trader concerned in order to discuss the consumer’s complaint and sought, as a first step, to resolve the matter directly with the trader;
    (b)
    the dispute is frivolous or vexatious;
    (c)
    the dispute is being, or has been previously, considered by another ADR entity or by a court;
    (d)
    the value of the claim falls below or above the monetary thresholds set by the body;
    (e)
    the consumer has not submitted the complaint to the body within the time period specified by the body, provided that such time period is not less than 12 months from the date upon which the trader has given notice to the consumer that the trader is unable to resolve the complaint with the consumer;
    (f)
    dealing with such a type of dispute would seriously impair the effective operation of the body.
    14.The body ensures that its policy regarding when it will refuse to deal with a dispute, including in relation to the level of any monetary threshold it sets, does not significantly impair consumers’ access to its alternative dispute resolution procedures.
    15.Subject to paragraph 16, where a body refuses to deal with a dispute, it must, within three weeks of the date upon which it received the complaint file, inform both parties and provide a reasoned explanation of the grounds for not considering the dispute.
    16.Where following the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 15, it appears to the body that one of the parties has sought to mislead the body as regards the existence or non-existence of one of the grounds for it to decline to deal with a dispute, the body may immediately decline to deal further with the dispute.


    13 a,

    The act does not stipulate a time limit. It merely states that an (ADR) appeal cannot be considered if the consumer has not previously contacted the trader. In other words, any appeal to the PPC is acceptable according to the Act, even if the PPC or their ATA says it is too late according to their made up rules. The Act (the law) has no such stipulation.

    13 e,

    The Act says that the time period for an ADR appeal must not be less than twelve months from the date the PPC told the consumer they have rejected the initial appeal.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • HO87
    HO87 Posts: 4,296 Forumite
    When will people realise that the reason why the PPC system will never be substantially and properly dealt with is very simple?

    It boils down to one word: Money.

    I have to admit that I am taken aback that this particular piece of gum has still got any flavour in it. The DM don't give a rat's ar*e other than boosting sales, nor does the government and nor do any of the institutions who are there to supposedly protect the consumer.

    The painful truth is that PPC ticketing is a bare-faced scam. It always has been and always will be and in exactly the same way that clamping always was. An awful lot of gullible people have been taken in over the years about the depredations suffered by landowners at the hands of thoughtless or selfish motorists. This is nothing but an unmitigated lie and despite the predictions of some pro-PPC voices Carmageddon has never, ever happened and nor will it.

    The Scottish got it right and the argument advanced in the case of Black -v- Carmichael could equally be applied to the demands for payment made in respect of PCN's because we know that people's financial futures are being clamped not their cars.

    A dreadful amount of lipstick has been applied to the pig by way of Codes of Practice, ATA's POFA POPLA and the IAS but its all intended for one purpose. To distract us from that painful truth that its all a load of BS. And if you doubt me - read, for example, the BPA's five-year plans for the last few years. They set out well in advance of POFA with a single objective - to get private parking enforcement at parity with LA enforcement and they are a good way down that road.

    And we have all connived at it. We deal with POPLA, the BPA and the IPC and all the time we give them credence we give credence to their argument. Martin Cutts was absolutely on the money when he described the BPA as "..one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK" and I agree whole-heartedly with that assessment.

    With PPC's generating a lot of money - especially for the DVLA - each year can or will the genie ever go back into the bottle? Probably not. Proper regulation isn't the answer here. PPC's had the opportunity to get their house in order and have demonstrated in spades that they have neither the will nor the ability to do so because there is too much money to be made otherwise. The government released the genie when it colluded at the situation by accepting the BPA's concocted court case figures - even after they were told the figures were clap-trap so don't expect anyone in Whitehall to bare their neck now.

    The government could ban this all tomorrow but they won't because like all of the so-called regulators in this field they are scared sh*tless of being taken to a very expensive Judicial Review if they do. Crapita have very deep pockets - even if their shares are currently performing like concrete gliders - as Beavis showed. None of the regulators will do nothing but go for the Aunt Sallies and nibble around the edges.

    And the MCOL system will just be !!!!!!!ised further with online courts which will deliver even less justice than small claims. The system supposedly designed for the small man to gain redress has been cynically and deliberately hijacked (and is completely dominated) by large corporations to hammer the little man because it isn't just PPC's that exploit the situation with default CCJ's.

    So unless and until the woman May is prepared to bite into that particular 2 million Scoville chilli nowt will happen.

    I for one am very reluctant to engage any further with the organisations involved because over the last seven years they have singularly failed to do anything but protect the vested interests - which is just a euphemism for the money.

    So all in all I believe that the only honest approach to the current situation is call on the government to ban PCN's. If companies want to manage car parks then get them to manage them - not "farm" them and s.56 should be repealed.
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016). :(

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
  • mowkid
    mowkid Posts: 86 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Bump - to show you all Carthesis' effort sent to his MP this week:

    Isent a slightly amended copy to my MP Allan Duncan. Not expecting any action mind but at least I tried
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    mowkid wrote: »
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Bump - to show you all Carthesis' effort sent to his MP this week:

    Isent a slightly amended copy to my MP Allan Duncan. Not expecting any action mind but at least I tried

    Keep trying again and again

    As Mrs May said at Conference today, "there was a revolution by the people regarding Brexit saying they will not be ignored anymore"

    Something to point out to MP's currently living in the past
  • trisontana
    trisontana Posts: 9,472 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    You could pick up on May's phrase "people who are just getting by".For one of these people to be saddled by a PPC's fake fine of up to a £100 could tip them over the edge.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 131,404 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    edited 7 August 2020 at 2:30PM
    This is a campaign of asking people to keep sending Theresa May actual hard copies of the letters they've been deluged with. Let her advisers' desks overflow with annoying paperwork re PPCs.

    No emails, all letters from genuine people pouring their hearts out. Write to your MP as well as Mrs May:

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/211923909-Why-not-write-to-your-MP

    The more the better, write it yourself if you are able and enclose copies of the threatograms and rubbish thrown at you.

    Do not do this by email - make your paperwork land with a thump on desks, just like it all landed in a very unwelcome way on your doormat.

    Apparently the DCLG are looking to make an announcement before the year end so let's make MP's and Mrs May aware that action needs to be strong. You can be sure that the BPA and IPC suits are lobbying Parliament and meeting their friends in suits.

    So let the consumers' voices be heard.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards