PCN indemnity insurance

PCN_Indemnity_Ltd

"There's no such thing as bad publicity"
Boy, I hope whoever said that was right! I'm the director of PCN Indemnity Ltd, and would just like to offer some reassurance.
CONCEPT. My background is over thirty years of dealing with transport legislation, and the last seven years working closely with the police, local authorities and Environmental Agencies in various guises. I've been offering advice on PCNs for several years after receiving one and seeing it for what it was; and I decided to set up a proper service after being appalled at the treatment of an elderly neighbour, who was intimidated into paying £110 for staying a couple of minutes over her ticket time.
SERVICE. If we charged £24.99 to ignore your PCN it would be poor value, but we don't. We challenge its validity, issue a written guarantee to the client, and deal with whatever the PPC throws at us. It's not a cash cow - postage alone takes up a fair chunk of our fee - but the service was genuinely set up for altruistic reasons, to stop PCN victims paying a fortune to a bully for something that probably isn't valid. If we cover our costs and make a few quid for our trouble, then great. And our website gives clear links for anyone who would prefer to challenge their tickets themselves.
CONNECTIONS. No, no, no! We're not connected to a PPC! I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this one. As other posters have pointed out, our business address is used by hundreds of companies. I can understand the paranoia though - my first thought on seeing these posts was that DavidFX was working for a PPC, although many of the posts have raised perfectly understandable points.
LEGALITY. We don't offer insurance but a guaranteed handling service. We're not solicitors, and we don't offer financial advice or investments, so under the tems of PERG we don't need to be regulated by the FSA - there's nothing to regulate!
Having said all that, I take your comments on board; the website has been tidied up to remove anything that could appear ambiguous. It's a genuine service aimed at people who aren't confident enough to challenge these charges themselves, and were resigned to paying the PPCs demands. Hopefully it will save them money and worry; I hope it can be seen that way.
Best regards,
Mike Doyle
PCN Indemnity Ltd

peter_the_piper

have you checked with the mods to see if its alright for you to post as it could be contrued as advertising.

AltheHibby

Peter,

I'm a cynic and tend to automatically distrust guys like Mike Doyle, but on this occasion I think that even if the post is advertising then it's okay as it's answering queries raised by members. Whatever we think of the concept, at least the man has identified himself and explained his viewpoint and that puts him one step up from the PPCs (and I think I've just complimented him!!).

fivegoldstars

Meh. Challenge its validity = send stock letter based on Tim Kevan's blog.

There's nothing altruistic about a £25 charge. The people on here spend their time giving the same advice for free - you just don't get a (worthless) certificate.
£25 to defend a case in court, and settle the costs if the defence fails, then you're providing a service. Something tells me you'd fail to answer your gmail account at this point.

notts_phil

Why should people pay when they can get the advice of what to do here for free....

You also state you give links to websites so people can challange it themselves.

Well why have you not linked to here and pepipoo?

I think the lack of links to this site etc really says it all as we would discourage people wasting their cash on your service.

Also what would you do if some one recieved a mcol?

bargepole

notts_phil wrote: »

Why should people pay when they can get the advice of what to do here for free....

Phil, I think we have to recognise that there are some people who, regardless of how many times we tell them to ignore the PPC threatograms, will worry and get stressed about it, and may well cave in and pay the ticket without coming back here to tell us.

Mike's service does give them another option. How well that's going to work remains to be seen, but if we see SR-S and Perky slagging it off, we'll know they're being hit in the pocket.

AlexisV

Thanks for posting Mike.

The inevitable question is, have you ever had a court claim to defend on behalf of a client?

notts_phil

bargepole wrote: »

Phil, I think we have to recognise that there are some people who, regardless of how many times we tell them to ignore the PPC threatograms, will worry and get stressed about it, and may well cave in and pay the ticket without coming back here to tell us.

Mike's service does give them another option. How well that's going to work remains to be seen, but if we see SR-S and Perky slagging it off, we'll know they're being hit in the pocket.

I can see your point. I am just not sure it all adds up. If it works for some people then all well and good.

peter_the_piper

If the VCS point about having ""title"" before being able to ticket really comes to the fore then this business may well find itself without customers.

Hadeon

However honourable (or not) Mr Doyles' motives may appear to be, this is still, at the end of the day, just another 'business opportunity' - it is reminiscent of 'identity theft' insurance, -it appears to offer a useful service, but in reality is just about as effective as the proverbial chocolate tea-pot.

I echo the points already made by AlexisV, notts_phil & others above.

Save your money & avoid is my honest opinion to anyone considering this 'service'(sic).

'IGNORE' costs nothing & is extremely effective.
It has worked & continues to work for me & countless others.