Unrest in the Parking industry, Upset from the inside - From Pepipoo

taffy056

Well I think know which one, unfortunately I did find things wrong with your website which I've reported to the dvla, I would suggest you remove references of offenders, illegal parking, fines and penalties if they exist from your website before the dvla finds them

bargepole

ppc_guy wrote: »

I think the first test will be any case which goes to court after 1st October. Everybody in the industry is being advised that if a motorist loses in the POPLA appeal then it is being advised to pursue immediately to court including the £32.40 as costs involved in recovery....

Trouble is, County Court rulings don't set any precedent, so what happens in one case has no bearing on what might happen in the next.

Of the 49 cases that went to a hearing in 2011, it was a 25-24 split between motorist and PPC, so really it all depends on the mood of the particular judge in a given court.

I can quite see some of the less clued-up Judges looking at the POPLA appeal rejection and no further, and finding in favour of the PPC on that basis; those who look at issues of contract law, and tenure of the land, would more likely dismiss the claim.

So no real change - the situation will be as confused as it was before.

ppc_guy

Taffy i have sent a PM i don't think you do know who I am

jkdd77

bargepole wrote: »

Trouble is, County Court rulings don't set any precedent, so what happens in one case has no bearing on what might happen in the next.

Of the 49 cases that went to a hearing in 2011, it was a 25-24 split between motorist and PPC, so really it all depends on the mood of the particular judge in a given court.

I can quite see some of the less clued-up Judges looking at the POPLA appeal rejection and no further, and finding in favour of the PPC on that basis; those who look at issues of contract law, and tenure of the land, would more likely dismiss the claim.

So no real change - the situation will be as confused as it was before.

I believe AlexisV has suggested that a clear majority of "his" defences were successful even where the identity of the driver was known, and that he suspects that many of the losses were due to woeful defences (e.g. "prove I was the driver" as the sole defence), [or were Devere at Bournemouth County Court].

I suspect that the number of cases brought to court will remain minuscule as a proportion of the total number of invoices ignored.

It might be wise for defendants to avoid Bournemouth if at all legally possible, since it appears that one or more of the judges there appears extremely receptive to PPC arguments, particularly where Devere are concerned.

bazster

ppc_guy wrote: »

Everybody in the industry is being advised that if a motorist loses in the POPLA appeal then it is being advised to pursue immediately to court including the £32.40 as costs involved in recovery.

That could be one hell of a lot of court cases!

BASFORDLAD

ppc_guy wrote: »

I think the first test will be any case which goes to court after 1st October. Everybody in the industry is being advised that if a motorist loses in the POPLA appeal then it is being advised to pursue immediately to court including the £32.40 as costs involved in recovery.
.

Really?

Can you give us some more information on this? has the BPA actually told companies they should take people to court because someone has lost a POPLA appeal?

I really like the sound of this challenge!. I dont however see a lot of the big companies taking people to court seeing as most dont own the land (VCS vs HMRC comes to mind in this)

Do you really think more cases will go to court because of this?,

If what PPC guy says then i could have quite a few trips to my local county court does anyone fancy bring tea and sandwiches (If you watch Corrie, think Blance & Norris, when gail platt got sent down)

note_2

trisontana wrote: »

All that needs to be done is to wind back the clock ten years or so and have the supermarkets and retail parks supervise their own car-parks. That's how it used to be, with a barrier at the entrance to the car-park manned by an employee of the supermarket checking receipts. Or just have a pay on exit system. That way you get rid of PPCs completely.

thats what i suggested on an earlier thread....surely a no brainer?

ppc_guy

Basford.. I have it in writing from Steve Clark and Richard Hilton.. which do you prefer?

HO87

ppc_guy wrote: »

I think the first test will be any case which goes to court after 1st October. Everybody in the industry is being advised that if a motorist loses in the POPLA appeal then it is being advised to pursue immediately to court including the £32.40 as costs involved in recovery.

There is some reasonable evidence to suggest that the DfT has put pressure on the BPA, following some of its recent faux pas - particularly the court case figures supplied to the DVLA - to put up or shut up. Assuming that this originates from Haywards Heath then the advice may not be a reflection of sound legal guidance but more politically motivated intended to regain what the BPA may see as its lost or reduced credibility.

ppc_guy wrote: »

The Appeals report will then be used as evidence and as the IAS is required by legislation then it is hoped/felt that this will give some weight to a case.

Hope is perhaps the correct word. Although small claims courts are notoriously relaxed now that the extremely narrow grounds of appeal that POPLA will examine have been published - none of which have any substantial bearing on the critical legal issues - one wonders how many judges will be swayed by the contents of their reports? After all, it matters not one iota if POPLA rejects an appeal on the basis, for example, that a pay and display ticket had slipped off a dashboard if the PPC were not legally able offer a contract in the first instance. From that point of view it would my case, if confronted with a POPLA report, to seek to exclude it as being self-serving.

ppc_guy wrote: »

Some companies will of course by default accept more appeals but some may be bloody minded and not change.

Another issue on POPLA from our point of view is that the motorist can write to us stating "I wish to appeal because i dont want to pay" which we reject. but then they can appeal to POPLA on totally different grounds.

Although we will have to see how things develop my view of this would be that you (as a PPC) could properly argue that the motorist has not in fact exhausted the company appeals mechanisms and has therefore failed to comply with the Act. I think that what you're suggesting is a non-argument bred of an ignorance of what the Act says.

ppc_guy wrote: »

But in all honesty nobody really has a clue what's going on. We have no real information from the BPA and POPLA haven't sent us anything either.
I would not be overly surprised if again some operators don't even know about POPLA at all. This will then be picked up on by the BPA and result no doubt in some silly amount of sanction points as a result of their own inabilities.

That sounds rather like there are alot of long faces amongst your fellow PPC's. I know you're hoping this will sort the wheat from the chaff (from that perspective I don't think our views would be terribly divergent) so I'm surprised that you don't seem to have picked up on any optimism. I'd be surprised if this doesn't see the ultimate departure of some PPC's which surely is going to open up the market to those whose systems are more aligned to what we might call the "norm".

Interesting comments.

ppc_guy

The "Norm" is a bizare concept as the "norm" in this instance isn't the accepted or indeed the acceptable. The Norm is a non entity who install cameras and then never surface again in physical form.

This also isn't the accepted.

People in the industry dont have a long face. and whilst some people already in the "game" may well be forced to cease there is also a large number of operators who are on the way into the ticketing trade. Many ex clampers, whilst expected to crawl away and hide, have in fact turned to ticketing.