For the attention of Crabman

taffy056

Obviously you know what is happening come 1st October. The advice is changing as we adapt to POPLA coming in and clamping being made illegal. But we have a whole thread on letters we get right now but that needs to be archived if possible and maybe a new one in its place.

What's concerning is the lack of response by the forum manager above, we need to close old threads with the last post on there being a message to post in the sub forum, do you have the ability to do this ? There is going to be a lot of confusion otherwise, it's a fundamental change of advice, so bringing up old threads is not going to help.


Thanks

HO87

+1

We need to start preparing for this now. I assume that the consensus is that the general strategy will be to advise invoices recipients to:

a). Appeal to the PPC. (I'd suggest that this be done in writing by recorded delivery and not to use any online appeal mechanism the PPC's may offer)
b). If this unsuccessful to appeal to POPLA
c). If the POPLA appeal is unsuccessful to ignore any further paperwork - except court papers.

The_Slithy_Tove

Why waste good money on recorded delivery? Proof of posting is more than enough. And the fact that your "appeal" will (probably) be rejected is proof enough that they received it.

peter_the_piper

HO87 wrote: »

+1

We need to start preparing for this now. I assume that the consensus is that the general strategy will be to advise invoices recipients to:

a). Appeal to the PPC. (I'd suggest that this be done in writing by recorded delivery and not to use any online appeal mechanism the PPC's may offer)
b). If this unsuccessful to appeal to POPLA
c). If the POPLA appeal is unsuccessful to ignore any further paperwork - except court papers.

May I suggest that b) If this unsuccessful to appeal to POPLA , if not a member of scheme then ignore.

Coupon-mad

Yep, it's important not to appeal at all if they are just some local chancer parking firm who are not AOS members. Those firms should not even be able to get DVLA access even by paper application so we need to suggest a complaint to the DVLA every time, if the person then gets a threatogram.

devonlad

I wonder if they can change all the signs in time. Surely this revenue loss they incur we may find them getting more devious.

Crabman

I can close existing threads with a message but can't do so en masse as I'd need to click on each thread and post a message individually.

As for the articles on the main site and official discussion threads on the forum, that's something MSE's Editorial folks will take care of. I'm not aware of plans for the 1st October in terms of an updated article with new advice as board guides have nothing to do with the main site or articles.

I think the best option is if I email the editorial part of MSE to ask their advice and point out the suggestions on this thread.

P.S: Can I just confirm that where someone receives a private parking ticket (for example) in September, the new keeper liability rules and appeal processes that commence on 1st October 2012 will not apply retrospectively?

HO87

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep, it's important not to appeal at all if they are just some local chancer parking firm who are not AOS members. Those firms should not even be able to get DVLA access even by paper application so we need to suggest a complaint to the DVLA every time, if the person then gets a threatogram.

A couple of very valid points - shows I wasn't concentrating - but the idea of this is that it is collaborative anyway. We do need to agree if this is going to work as a general action plan.

Obviously there will occasionally be odd cases that deserve a slightly different approach but I don't think we should include mention of this in the outline as everyone will think their case will fall into the "odd case" bracket.

So an amended action plan - throwing in some extra detail as well - would be:

1. Is the PPC a member of the BPA AOS?

2. If the answer to 1. above is "Yes", then appeal to the company by post (obtaining proof of posting)*

3. If the answer to 1. above is "No", then ignore the PPC's demands but complain to DVLA about the non-AOS company obtaining RK details.

4. If appeal to PPC is unsuccessful then appeal to POPLA

5. If appeal to POPLA is successful then its a win!

6. If appeal to POPLA is unsuccessful then revert to not responding to all letters of demand from PPC, DCA and solicitor.

7. If court documents issued then return here for further advice.

Is there anything else we need to provide for here?

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Why waste good money on recorded delivery? Proof of posting is more than enough. And the fact that your "appeal" will (probably) be rejected is proof enough that they received it.

* PPC's will need to document how they respond to appeals as they will have to provide POPLA with details of what they've done (they have quite a paper-shift to do for each appeal - and they have to pay as well :cool:). I can foresee some PPC's being so inefficient they they lose appeals or just don't bother and attempt to claim that they never received them. That manoeuvre would prevent an invoice recipient from appealing to POPLA and would effectively stall the process. Recorded Delivery/Registered is probably over the top and, as S_T suggests a proof of posting would suffice - and its free of course.

Crabman wrote: »

P.S: Can I just confirm that where someone receives a private parking ticket (for example) in September, the new keeper liability rules and appeal processes that commence on 1st October 2012 will not apply retrospectively?

You are correct. The new law will only apply to incidents that arise after 00.01 hrs on 1st October.

Coupon-mad

Yes, Crabman you are right, the new POPLA procedure is NOT for tickets issued in September and nor will registered keeper liability apply restrospectively.

In simple terms our advice will be for tickets issued from 1st October:

Appeal to the parking company and - if rejected - then to POPLA but ONLY where the PPC is a member of the AOS:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/AOS-Members

If they are not listed there then a parking firm cannot get the registered keeper's details, not even by postal application. If somehow they do send a threatogram then the registered keeper must write a complaint to the DVLA, or email a complaint to the DVLA as it's likely to be a data breach (unless someone like the landowner has got the data, but a complaint would establish that).

Also only AOS members get 'registered keeper liability' anyway so a non-member has the old problem of having to know who was driving. Messy system!

Bottom line is for either scenario, do not pay. Even if the POPLA appeal is unsuccessful it's not binding in any way and will have cost the PPC a crisp £32+ as we all know! What's not to like?!

BASFORDLAD

I think HO87 advice is very good

I think come october 1st we should use something along the lines of what HO87 has said as a stock answer to questions, however it will be a few weeks until the post 1st october tickets get issued

Crabman, obviously the PPCs will use this new legislation in their letters and we will need to update all the letter chains..... over the next few months

RENEGADE_2

As I'm still unclear of this side of things, can someone tell me exactly what POPLA stands for and where they come into the picture.

I'm puzzled by something else - is something set to alter matters radically from 1 October? I realise that a keeper is answerable for his vehicle's involvement in a breach of parking contract but why do we recommend an "appeal"? That was once the buzzword to avoid. Nobody says not to communicate with the swines but surely a rejection of demand would be far better given that they will seek de facto penalties disproportionate to actual losses. Surely one strongly-worded letter to the PPC telling them that the action did not cost them the money they demand and that if they disagree they should attempt county court will suffice, won't it?

Or is this hallmark of justice within Contract Law also overturned come 1st October?