RAF lad gets Fine from Service Station

AlexisV

Go to the back of the class Ian.

grant_uk

taffy056 wrote: »

I'm sorry but it can't be ignored, stop giving incorrect advice on this as you are confusing people on here, if you don't know anything about the new rules that are in force now I would suggest you read up on it

Hi Taffy

I also believed that the 'ignore' advice was still valid after October 1st because a PPC would still need to take either the driver or the registered keeper to court to have any hope of getting money out of them legally.

Is it not the case that the new rules simply mean that the PPCs can chase the registered keeper for their fees if the offending driver hasn't been identified? Other than that, it still needs to go to court before the driver can be ordered to pay whatever the judge believes is owed.

It was my understanding that using the POPLA appeals process was really just a way of racking up costs for the PPCs because any ruling could still end up being ignored by the driver/RK and the PPC would end up having to go to court anyway.

Is there something I'm missing? None of the stickies have been updated that I can see, so I'm confused as to the change of tack.

I'll take this to a new thread if people prefer it.

Cheers - Grant

trisontana

Quentin wrote: »

Saying you have now "read the rules" doesn't make you an authority, so why are you continuing to post in such an authoritative matter on this issue?

The OP (and others reading this thread for info) should ignore your "ignore, ignore and please read the other threads here" bad advice.

If you read other threads on here and other forums, they are still saying ignore. Nothing has changed.

bazster

Sorry Taffy but I think the ignore advice is OK if the RK is willing to be pursued - maybe because they were also the driver.

It doesn't help to test POPLA or cost the PPC, but the poster has come for help with their own problem, for which "ignore" is a reasonable solution. You can't just co-opt people into a campaign, they have to choose "fight" over "ignore".

taffy056

bazster wrote: »

Sorry Taffy but I think the ignore advice is OK if the RK is willing to be pursued - maybe because they were also the driver.

It doesn't help to test POPLA or cost the PPC, but the poster has come for help with their own problem, for which "ignore" is a reasonable solution. You can't just co-opt people into a campaign, they have to choose "fight" over "ignore".

But we don't know where ignore completely will lead to, at least with an appeal we know where it goes and can offer advice on that. So I stand by what I say in that ignore is not the correct thing to do, even if he is the RK of the vehicle.

Welsh_Exile

IanManc wrote: »

That was the law up until midnight. It has changed now.

The parking company can now issue a ticket and require the registered keeper to name the driver. If the keeper doesn't, then the keeper becomes liable for the penalty.

Penalty charges have to be displayed at the site in a notice. Parking companies have to be working on behalf of the landowner, but no longer need to have an interest in the land in order to enforce that penalty. Nor does the penalty have to relate to any "loss" suffered - the parking company can levy a penalty charge provided they have given notice on site of the existence of a penalty charge and the amount. They also need to operate an appeals procedure.

The old advice of ignore it / they can't enforce it etc is wrong for tickets issued on private land from 1.10.12 onwards in England and Wales.

I'm not sure how to put this kindly so I won't - you are talking nonsense. "Penalty charge" indeed!
Answer this - how will a PPC enforce a charge post 1st October compared with before?

taffy056

IanManc wrote: »

That was the law up until midnight. It has changed now.

The parking company can now issue a ticket and require the registered keeper to name the driver. If the keeper doesn't, then the keeper becomes liable for the penalty.

Penalty charges have to be displayed at the site in a notice. Parking companies have to be working on behalf of the landowner, but no longer need to have an interest in the land in order to enforce that penalty. Nor does the penalty have to relate to any "loss" suffered - the parking company can levy a penalty charge provided they have given notice on site of the existence of a penalty charge and the amount. They also need to operate an appeals procedure.

The old advice of ignore it / they can't enforce it etc is wrong for tickets issued on private land from 1.10.12 onwards in England and Wales.

Honestly you really need to study this, these are NOT penalty charges, and hrmc v VCS would disagree with you on interest in the land! they are just invoices, even the BPA says they are. Please don't post such things on here as your points are not open for debate, they are just utterly wrong!

Orford

taffy056 wrote: »

But we don't know where ignore completely will lead to, at least with an appeal we know where it goes and can offer advice on that.

Except that POPLA is such disarray they haven't even notified PPC's of the POPLA appeal documents needed to send out to drivers who appeal:

ppc_guy wrote: »

We are operators still dont have a clue how POPLA works so 90% of you on here are ahead of us. In theory a person could have a ticket today, Drafted and posted an appeal. It could be in office tommorow and in theory replied to on Wednesday. ... BUT we cannot reply as we dont have the information we are required to send to you about POPLA.

jennyjj

Is it not the case that the new rules simply mean that the PPCs can chase the registered keeper for their fees if the offending driver hasn't been identified?

I'm saddened and dissapointed that our lawmakers have built this concession into the new legislation. It kicks away one of the strongest defences against the BPA scum. It may embolden them to actually take a few cases to court, and heaven help us if they win a few cases.
How in the name of all that is holy did this BPA advocated clause get into a perfectly reasonable law which thrashed the even scummier clampers. Who got a kickback. Which of the corrupt MP's should not get our vote next time?
One step forward, one step back.

JJ

Coupon-mad

IanManc wrote: »

That was the law up until midnight. It has changed now.

The parking company can now issue a ticket and require the registered keeper to name the driver. If the keeper doesn't, then the keeper becomes liable for the penalty.

Penalty charges have to be displayed at the site in a notice. Parking companies have to be working on behalf of the landowner, but no longer need to have an interest in the land in order to enforce that penalty. Nor does the penalty have to relate to any "loss" suffered - the parking company can levy a penalty charge provided they have given notice on site of the existence of a penalty charge and the amount. They also need to operate an appeals procedure.

The old advice of ignore it / they can't enforce it etc is wrong for tickets issued on private land from 1.10.12 onwards in England and Wales.

The only bit you got right was your first sentence = yes, the law has changed.

I would have expected a regular MSEer not to try to post giving 'advice' where you haven't a clue what the real situation is. More homework required methinks as your post is alarmist and incorrect.