CP PLUS Ticket

Kite2010

Just ignore, complaining to the land-owner about harassment from a contractor is good. The sooner retailers relise that having a PPC to solve the non-existent "problem" is driving customers away the better for them and customers

RENEGADE_2

Their demand is unlawful as it does not constitute actual losses and legislation here is Contract Law - matters are resolved in County and not Magistrates' Courts and are civil cases rendered in the form of disputes, being the respondent does not mean you are on trial.

On principle, they do not know who the driver is as they only request keeper details. You've told them, fair enough, it's cut that out for them. Appeals are also discouraged as they send a signal to these animals that you accede to their authority. Letters should specify outright denial of the charge.

By and large it is safe to ignore all correspondences from these people (PPCs and their third parties) and in the end, they go away. If they try court, they'd lose for the reasons I gave above. Although they'll threaten legal action, it is wholly empty.

PPCs are crooks, their continued status is on the bald fringes of legality; just realise that if ever you receive a ticket from a private firm, there is a 99.9999% chance it is unenforceable. You need to take care if it is on the railways (Byelaw 14) or if the PPC is a client for the council on public land. If neither of these, a PPC operating on private land, any "charge notice" is invalid.