Letter From The BPA

give_them_FA

If we look at it another way, we can quite easily scupper the entire scheme anyway. They are suggesting 20,000 appeals on 2.5 million tickets issue? Don't think so! If they carry on demanding these stupid excessive fines, do they seriously believe only less than 1% will appeal? What we should be aiming at is to persuade EVERYONE to appeal. Their system will grind to a complete standstill and the PPCs will get nothing in the meantime. And, of course, whatever the result of the appeal, to still pay nothing!

More disinformation from the leader of the bandits. "what receives far less coverage though are the cases where the operator wins."

Surely would have been YOUR job to highlight them, mate? Or do they receive far less coverage because there are far fewer/don't exist? Carefully chosen words designed to mislead again.....

peter_the_piper

what receives far less coverage though are the cases where the operator wins."

If this is the case then why do we only ever hear about Stephen Thomas?

Coupon-mad

give_them_FA wrote: »

If we look at it another way, we can quite easily scupper the entire scheme anyway. They are suggesting 20,000 appeals on 2.5 million tickets issue? Don't think so! If they carry on demanding these stupid excessive fines, do they seriously believe only less than 1% will appeal? What we should be aiming at is to persuade EVERYONE to appeal. Their system will grind to a complete standstill and the PPCs will get nothing in the meantime. And, of course, whatever the result of the appeal, to still pay nothing!

QUOTE]



IMHO this is going to be the way forward - we can help with some sort of template appeal for people to use which does not in any way jeopardise their position if ever a PPC did try Court.

They are going to hate those template appeals.

peter_the_piper

DONT call them FINES.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::beer:

give_them_FA

FINE! I won't, then.

AlexisV

give_them_FA wrote: »

If we look at it another way, we can quite easily scupper the entire scheme anyway. They are suggesting 20,000 appeals on 2.5 million tickets issue? Don't think so! If they carry on demanding these stupid excessive fines, do they seriously believe only less than 1% will appeal? What we should be aiming at is to persuade EVERYONE to appeal. Their system will grind to a complete standstill and the PPCs will get nothing in the meantime. And, of course, whatever the result of the appeal, to still pay nothing!

More disinformation from the leader of the bandits. "what receives far less coverage though are the cases where the operator wins."

Surely would have been YOUR job to highlight them, mate? Or do they receive far less coverage because there are far fewer/don't exist? Carefully chosen words designed to mislead again.....

Ask them to provide a list!

scabbyfiver

trisontana wrote: »

Last week I sent off a follow-up email to the BPA over some of the points raised by them. I especially questioned their answer over liquidated damages and quoted two recent court cases (Parking Eye and OPC), where in both cases the judge ruled that the sums demanded were unfair penalties and didn't reflect the actual loss suffered by the PPC/landowner. I also said that I didn't think there was a need for that appeals procedure as the courts are the best place to judge an individual case.

Below is their answer. As you see they completely failed to address the question of liquidated damages. I wonder why? :-

You will appreciate that time pressures and other priorities preclude me from entering lengthy and protracted debate but I would like to make two brief comments in closing;

1 I understand that there are cases where the operator does not win and that these are highlighted on the various websites - what receives far less coverage though are the cases where the operator wins.

2 I don't believe that it would be better for cases to go to Court rather than an Independent Appeals Service (IAS) for a number of reasons;
* There will be no cost to the motorist for taking a case to the IAS
* The IAS will be fully funded by the industry - no cost to the tax-payer
* Taking a case to the IAS will be far less stressful for the motorist
* The decision of the IAS will be binding on the operator
* If the motorist loses his case at the IAS, he could still consider allowing the matter to go to Court
* It is estimated that there could be up 20k cases for the IAS each year - the Court's time can be better spent

Kind regards

That says it all.

Nothing changes.

peter_the_piper

"""The IAS will be fully funded by the industry - no cost to the tax-payer""
I wonder how many will be accepted, after all if the industry has to pay then the money will have to come from somewhere. More tickets I assume as well.

AlexisV

Ah, so presumably the government have stood by their insistence that they won't pay anything for the BPA's kangaroo court.

solbarca

I am slightly concerned. I have just received a parking charge notice and, on reading all the available threads understood that this company never took people to court. Could you please clarify this point. I note that you say that "the recent Parking Eye case where they were only awarded the cost of two P&D tickets, plus less than £100 in costs.....:"