independent appeals from October - Question

Dublindel

Will the advice from MSE and CAG change from ignore to appeal from 1st October?

BASFORDLAD

Yes indeed

But I think we will need to stick to the same hymn sheet and maybe scripted to ensure we cost the ppcs as much as possible

Dublindel

I agree, and that's why I posted. A new plan in place

ManxRed

Its being discussed on PePiPoo too. I don't do 'CAG' though.

The favoured idea is to put a few test cases in based on the known issues (Landowner rights, penalties) and see how it goes. Obviously the appeals should be upheld, and if so, we can map our tactics accordingly. However if they are not, and even at the 'independant (ha ha!) appeals process' if they are rejected, then we can devise different tactics based on that outcome.

BASFORDLAD

Bargepole

I have such a name and address that could be used by anyone that wanted to use it.

Would get post everyday at that address but it wouldnt be a problem.

Its a real address and a real person.

Coupon-mad

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Bargepole

I have such a name and address that could be used by anyone that wanted to use it.

Would get post everyday at that address but it wouldnt be a problem.

Its a real address and a real person.

Now that could be interesting, if we used a standard template letter and a standard name and address (same every time!) to every fake PCN after October!

:rotfl:

BASFORDLAD

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Now that could be interesting, if we used a standard template letter and a standard name and address (same every time!) to every fake PCN after October!

:rotfl:

Well it wouldnt worry me what so ever

As long as it is legal then that address could receive 100 letters a week for all i care

Dublindel

But 100 appeals a week for a minimum period of 3 years would be eye watering and most importantly, out of the control of PPC, they have to pay

bazster

I'm sorry folks but you are misunderstanding the POFA. There is nothing in the POFA that obliges the RK to notify the driver's name.

All the POFA says, in effect, is that where the "creditor" doesn't know who was driving, they can hold the RK liable. So if you tell the PPC that the driver was some fictional person at some fictional address then, as soon as they discover this, then they still don't know who the driver was and they can still hold the RK liable.

In other words, you can't get out of it simply by nominating a driver, unless that person really was the driver. Although, of course, you could waste an awful lot of their time and money, since as far as I can see you could lie to them as many times as you wanted about who was driving, without any comeback (although a judge might not be too impressed if you ever did end up in court as the RK).

BASFORDLAD

But the address wouldnt be fictional, it would be a real address that has people living there and it would be real names.

So Person A gets letter and then tells parking spy its person B driving

Parking Spy write to Person B who rings up and says yea it was me driving but i aint paying!

bazster

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Was person B driving or not? If it's simply a case of having someone say "yeah I was driving but I ain't paying" then the RK can do that, there's no need to involve person B.

What I'm saying is that bargepole's fictitious person ruse will not work if the PPC works out it's a fictitious person, they will just come right back to the RK. Of course, they may never work out that it's a fictitious person, and if they do then the RK could simply nominate another fictitious person!