Will it be legal to give False driver details to PPC?

WageSlave1_2

I think there's something to be said for a campaign to nominate either Patrick Troy (Chief Exec of the BPA) or Theresea May (the Govt minister who was responsible for the Protection of Freedoms Bill) as the driver when sending forms back to PPCs post 1st October. To switch it up a bit one might nominate some other board member of the BPA - or indeed the director of whichever PPC has sent the demand in the first place

Obviously it is meant as a protest, not as a genuine attempt to deceive. I seem to recall that when the Govt enacted some law or regulation requiring unmarried mothers to name the sprog's father on their benefit claims someone suggested that each woman concerned should name her local MP.

If the form one is sent to grass up the driver has some sort of 'statement of truth' on it, just cross it out and replace it with something else, eg "It is reasonably believed, on good grounds, that the person named above may be responsible for your parking charge or will have done something which has caused the charge to be issued"

LincolnshireYokel

HO87 wrote: »

These days its about getting pumped up on Red Bull and energy bars.

and then going out and killing the odd harmless newpaper seller making his way home, or some random innocent brazilian tourist on the London Underground.

verityboo

WageSlave1 wrote: »

I think there's something to be said for a campaign to nominate either Patrick Troy (Chief Exec of the BPA) or Theresea May (the Govt minister who was responsible for the Protection of Freedoms Bill) as the driver when sending forms back to PPCs post 1st October. To switch it up a bit one might nominate some other board member of the BPA - or indeed the director of whichever PPC has sent the demand in the first place

I agree, The BPA obviously find lying (especially to MP's) a bit of a jolly jape so i'm sure they would see the funny side

bargepole

WageSlave1 wrote: »

... Obviously it is meant as a protest, not as a genuine attempt to deceive...."

I can see where you're coming from, but actually I don't believe there's anything to really protest about in the new Act.

The PPCs will, I believe, have to take more notice of genuine appeals rather than dismissing 99.9% of them out of hand, and of those that they reject, a fair few (far more than the estimated 1%) will go to POPLA, costing the PPC another £32.

Then the ones that POPLA dismiss, won't be binding on the motorist, so if ignored, the PPC will still have to either drop it, or risk going to court for little or no return.

The more you look at this, the more it seems the PPCs haven't got a very good deal out of the government, while it's an opportunity for us to cause them even more pain and suffering.

Welsh_Exile

HO87 wrote: »

I agree entirely. Its common sense really. Why endanger oneself when the case against a PPC invoice is so much more valuable when left to stand on its own?

I think the chance of plod pursuing matters is slim but there is always going to be one officer who will give it a run to get out of the rain.

As for Greggs and variously allusions to doughnuts (as opposed to the American illiterate attempt at do-nut) you guys don't get it do you? These days its about getting pumped up on Red Bull and energy bars. PC Fat-B'stard went out with the Ark.

And, please, if they do go for doughnuts it is Krispy-Kreme. Not some other imitation.

We are on the same page. One small point - doughnuts still have a place in police culture; as an unofficial fine* for being late.



*No, it's not legally enforceable and debt collectors aren't involved, just peer pressure

AlexisV

Bear in mind that there are set grounds upon which you can make representations to councils and appeal to the adjudicator.

The ground that 'the contravention did not occur' gives unlimited scope for appealing PCNs, so I can't see this new 'service' being able to narrow down grounds.

HO87

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

We are on the same page. One small point - doughnuts still have a place in police culture; as an unofficial fine* for being late.

*No, it's not legally enforceable and debt collectors aren't involved, just peer pressure

Absolutely. No debt-collectors, definitely. However, if the fine remained unpaid by the end of the shift your own car would be jacked up and wheels removed. Or the bog cling-filmed. Or your locker inverted. The fine didn't involve doughnuts but always entailed supplying food - breakfast for the entire shift on earlies, homemade (not bought) cake for lates and spring rolls for the whole shift and roads policing on nights.

BASFORDLAD

I have had confirmation from someone in the legal field that this would indeed be covered under the fraud act.

So I think that firm knocks this one on the head, no matter how small the risk, we don't wish to give any ammunition to the PPC's.

It was an interesting debate nevertheless!

bazster

bargepole wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from, but actually I don't believe there's anything to really protest about in the new Act.

I agree that POFA is actually quite bad news for the PPC's, but nonetheless the RK nonsense is still an attempt to overturn centuries of contract law and a basic principal of natural justice. That, surely, is worth protesting about?

Clearly such a protest couldn't be an offence because, in naming someone whom even an intellectually-challenged goldfish could see to be a spoof, there is obviously no intent.

Still doubtful though whether it wouldn't be more effective to get to an appeal and relieve them of some money ASAP. Although, I guess, you could do both: if they spotted the spoof straight away (do they have the brain power of an intellectually-challenged goldfish?) they would simply move on to the next letter in the chain and the appeal would still come around without undue delay - at which point you could repeat your protest by naming another obviously-spoof driver!

LincolnshireYokel

bazster wrote: »

I agree that POFA is actually quite bad news for the PPC's, but nonetheless the RK nonsense is still an attempt to overturn centuries of contract law and a basic principal of natural justice. That, surely, is worth protesting about?

Clearly such a protest couldn't be an offence because, in naming someone whom even an intellectually-challenged goldfish could see to be a spoof, there is obviously no intent.

Still doubtful though whether it wouldn't be more effective to get to an appeal and relieve them of some money ASAP. Although, I guess, you could do both: if they spotted the spoof straight away (do they have the brain power of an intellectually-challenged goldfish?) they would simply move on to the next letter in the chain and the appeal would still come around without undue delay - at which point you could repeat your protest by naming another obviously-spoof driver!

I disagree. The point here is that the appeal result isnt binding on the driver, so all you need to do is cough up as driver, appeal, and then reject the result and tell them to take you to court. Then adter they have been demolished with the usual methods, they will realise that there RK law and there appeal process wont earn them an extra cent in scam revenue, but might cost them a packet in wasted £27's and court fees instead.

Game set and match to the sensible people.