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

bazster

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

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.

Yes, all fair points. I'm not advocating anything really, just musing aloud. I'm sure it'll take a bit of time for a settled "best practice" approach to new order to become established.

bargepole

Some more thoughts on this: Currently there are 1.8m private tickets issued annually, which is expected to rise to 2.5m once clamping ends.

The POPLA adjudication service expect, according to their own estimates, that 1% of these will end up on their desk.

So that's between 18,000 and 25,000 tickets annually, which works out at between 70 and 96 appeals per working day, or between 9 and 12 per hour if you like. The Adjudicator's going to be working flat out to deal with this and will only have 5 or 6 minutes to look at each case.

If we, and other sites, can push that 1% figure up to near 5%, giving them 350-500 to deal with on a daily basis, I can see the whole thing grinding to a shuddering halt.

Coupon-mad

And another thought.

Appealing to POPLA costs the PPC £27 but it could cost them more perhaps?!

PPCs WILL lose lots of cases = MUCH more scope for suing for harassment afterwards? You could cite as harassment the fake PCN and the refusals to cancel it which came as part of the PPC's own templated 'appeals process' (LOL!). Several letters which were still demanding the money could be cited as harassment - and your Small Claim would be backed up by the findings of POPLA in a case where the POPLA appeal succeeds.

This would be particularly true in the case of disability discrimination. Can't wait to see POPLA surprised by one of those cases with a clear breach of the Equality Act claimed. I am almost tempted to try one myself in October, deliberately, with a disabled passenger (and I know someone who does have a long-term chronic condition or six, and who does not have a Blue Badge!). Mr Greenslade the chief adjudicator probably thinks he's up to speed because he knows about the Blue Badge scheme...:)

taffy056

Another thought here, if it costs them £27 a time to do an appeal they've got bear that cost and cannot pass it onto the motorist if the appeal is rejected, so a £60 invoice reduced to £40 is going to disappear as they are not going to accept that. So they will be raising these coats up, more people will be looking at advice on the web, there will be more appeals. I think 5%-10% will be about it.

Also whilst writing this just had another one, if an appeal is ignored and the ppc goes to court will they be able to even claim for the cost of the appeal as no cost is to be passed on.

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

.... Several letters which were still demanding the money could be cited as harassment - and your Small Claim would be backed up by the findings of POPLA in a case where the POPLA appeal succeeds. ...

Can't find the link now, but I'm sure I read somewhere that when there's an appeal, the PPC has to hold off any chasing/debt collector letters until the outcome of the appeal is known?

Coupon-mad

bargepole wrote: »

Can't find the link now, but I'm sure I read somewhere that when there's an appeal, the PPC has to hold off any chasing/debt collector letters until the outcome of the appeal is known?

Yep I think I read that too - but the initial letters from the PPC (not debt collector) refusing the appeal and still trying to extort the money, could be harassment if POPLA chuck the case out on the very appeal basis that the motorist had already cited to the PPC?

And I wonder if any PPCs will be daft enough to pursue a lost POPLA case with debt collectors afterwards? Easy harassment claim surely?!

LincolnshireYokel

The more you look at it, the clearer it becomes that the BPA thought it had pulled a blinder with the 90,000 tickets lie, whereas in fact at the same time the civil servants were busy stitching them up with worthless legisl;ation, that the BPA were too dim to figure out. The civil service has completely outflanked the semi-literates at the BPA on this one.

taxiphil

My own view on giving hooky driver details, for what it's worth, is that the Police/CPS are specialists in shoe-horning pretty much any misdemeanour into one of a range of Acts of Parliament. Just look at the wide range of laws they used to bring charges against last year's rioters. People were prosecuted just for being in the wrong street at the wrong time, even though they weren't doing anything. I'm sure they have flowcharts which in essence read as "if you can't do them under this law, do them under that one."

Furthermore, the Fraud Act (like the older Theft Act) is a very wide-reaching umbrella and, as others have stated, works primarily on the principles of intent.

There is also the fact that, contrary to the principles of "de minimis" and common sense, the Police/CPS in recent years have become increasingly fanatical about minor misdemeanours and "thought crimes"; you can now get busted by a team of detectives for making a comment on Twitter that was hurtful towards someone else's feelings. And if anyone thinks that the low financial value of any alleged "crime" is a deterrent to prosecution, see this article.

So I'd have to say that furnishing a PPC with bullsh*t details should be a no-no. Ignoring everything still seems the best way forward.

bazster

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

The more you look at it, the clearer it becomes that the BPA thought it had pulled a blinder with the 90,000 tickets lie, whereas in fact at the same time the civil servants were busy stitching them up with worthless legisl;ation, that the BPA were too dim to figure out. The civil service has completely outflanked the semi-literates at the BPA on this one.

Yes, that's exactly my take on it. Game set and match to the wily Sir Humphreys, writing on the wall for the gormless PPCs.

bazster

taxiphil wrote: »

Ignoring everything still seems the best way forward.

It doesn't, you gotta appeal first in order to cost them £27 + VAT. Then ignore.