independent appeals from October - Question

taffy056

But that is no different to now, the appeal points will be the same in the small claims then as it is now. You will have a right to defend yourself in the small claims, you would be mad to defend with its a scam your honour. If they say why participate in the appeals process, it's simple it's your right to do so as it will say that on the invoice. I don't think the judge would say well you took part in that so we find for the ppc.

It's certainly going to be interesting when it comes in, my opinion on it that it won't change much what we have now, except that it's going to cost the ppcs a whole lot more money to operate, can see some going to the wall as their money will be tied up in the appeal system. It takes patas at least 8-10 weeks to hear anything. Can't see this being different.

bargepole

Just thinking this through a bit more and trying to second guess what might happen, there are quite a number of grounds for appeal (leaving aside the unlawfulness of the whole shebang), where PPCs routinely reject appeals.

These would include:
Ticket fell off dashboard
Punched in wrong registration number
Forgot to display blue badge
Left carpark to go to cash machine
Overstayed a few minutes due to queues at checkout
Signs too small / not clearly displayed
etc.

Now, if the POPLA service is run in a similar way to PATAS, we know that around 60% of appeals are upheld, and it may be that a similar percentage will apply to private tickets.

Any sensible PPC owner (if there is such a thing, Mr Perkins and Mr Renshaw-Smith need not apply) should therefore allow appeals on these grounds at the informal stage, to save wasting £32 on fighting a losing battle.

bazster

Of course you wouldn't defend yourself literally with "it's a scam", the point is that the best defences are those that attack the whole scam in general e.g. "According to HMRC vs VCS the PPC is not capable of entering into a contract your honour".

To which someone (not necessarily the judge, probably the PPC scrote or his lawyer) may well say "then why did you appeal as though you did accept that a contract could've existed?"

Of course, the grounds of your appeal might've been precisely that no contract could have existed (not that it didn't exist, but that it couldn't exist), in which case no problem vis a vis any potential court appearance, but since that will certainly not be a valid ground for appeal within the "rules" of the scheme, it remains to be seen whether it would trigger the £27 charge to the PPC, or whether it would be struck out summarily, as it were, without being "heard".

Anyway, what exactly is the issue with making it clear that, wherever you engage with the process, that does not imply acceptance that any of it is valid? Belt and braces. bargepole (I think) made exactly the same point earlier on this thread.

bazster

bargepole wrote: »

Just thinking this through a bit more and trying to second guess what might happen, there are quite a number of grounds for appeal (leaving aside the unlawfulness of the whole shebang)

...<snip>...

Any sensible PPC owner (if there is such a thing, Mr Perkins and Mr Renshaw-Smith need not apply) should therefore allow appeals on these grounds at the informal stage, to save wasting £32 on fighting a losing battle.

In which case one should not appeal to the PPC on these grounds. Appeal on a ground that they cannot possibly accept (e.g. that the whole thing is an unlawful scam), so as to cost them more hassle and an extra £27. If necessary introduce the more specific grounds when making the "independent" appeal.

Coupon-mad

We just need a good template letter that sets out firstly that the registered keeper does not accept any liability and in invoking the appeals procedure he/she is simply making a reasonable attempt to get an annoying, unjustified and unlawful invoice cancelled amicably.

I am sure pepipoo will come up with the goods.

taffy056

But can they go straight to the small claims without the appeal process? thereby saving themselves £27. Also will they be able to send out the threatograms from the DCAs before an appeal is heard ?

Coupon-mad

taffy056 wrote: »

But can they go straight to the small claims without the appeal process? thereby saving themselves £27. Also will they be able to send out the threatograms from the DCAs before an appeal is heard ?

I think not if they are members of the BPA AOS scheme.

bazster

taffy056 wrote: »

But can they go straight to the small claims without the appeal process? thereby saving themselves £27. Also will they be able to send out the threatograms from the DCAs before an appeal is heard ?

Remains to be seen, but I can't see a court upholding any claim where the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to utilise the established appeal mechanism.

bargepole

taffy056 wrote: »

But can they go straight to the small claims without the appeal process? thereby saving themselves £27. Also will they be able to send out the threatograms from the DCAs before an appeal is heard ?

Both of those would be a serious breach of the BPA code of practice, and would result in them getting a big slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce. The DVLA might even revoke their RK data access for a few weeks (meaning they'd have to save up the numbers and put them through when the ban gets lifted).

That's not to say some won't try it though, as the BPA seem to have little or no control over their members.

minion101

This must mean there is an argument for using the claims court defence as part of the appeals process.

If the appeal is rejected, then goes to court and the PPC argues that you have accepted the validity of their claim by going to appeal you could simply state that you were trying to save the courts time and money. Wouldn't this blow their argument out of the water?

Similarly if initial appeals that only use the claims court defence are automatically rejected then everyone after this could cite these rejections as reasons for not using them in their own appeal and have no alternative but to argue them in court.

Again destroying any implcation that you have accepted the PPC process as valid. Although I agree that the belt and braces approach as stated earlier covers all bases .