RAF lad gets Fine from Service Station

Coupon-mad

jennyjj wrote: »

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

We - the regulars on this board - thought that as well, about a year ago when we were first looking at the proposed Bill.

But in reality it's great! There's an appeals process which the PPCs have to pay for every time and which will expose their business model to scrutiny at the same time. They will be out of pocket by over £32 every time someone uses POPLA, whatever the outcome (as long as the motorist then ignores the findings if their appeal is not upheld - which they are allowed to do). And non-AOS members are out in the cold so they must just be ignored. If they get rk data they will have got it illegally.

The AOS-member PPCs are spitting feathers over this debacle and for us, nothing much has changed. A scam has not suddenly become enforceable just because they will be allowed to send their threatograms to the registered keeper.

Half_way

From what i understand the only thng thats changed is that you can no longer hide behind the "i was driving and im not going to say who was" excuse
the rest of it is still as it was before, in that the landowner can only do you for genuine losses caused by your parking.
Private companies, individuals, and organisations can not issue penaltys to others, anything that they do issue is a speculative invoice, contract law has not changed.

If it is a penalty charge, then it is 100% un enforcable, as it is not a true reflection for any losses suffered by the land owner as a result of the parking, the keeper, or anyone else for that matter can not be held liable, the post quoted below just shows how mis guided and badly informed some people are:

Originally Posted by IanManc
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.

Fergie76

spike7451 wrote: »

Sorry but in this case you're wrong.

What will happen is the PPC will find out that he is a serviceman via his address if he uses a base address.
(married personnel in AMQ's may have the address as "Cpl Bod,31 Station Road,RAF Conningsby" for example & single servicemen will have their mail delivered to their squadron as they live in barracks)
The PPC will write to the Discipline Section via the Station Commander (all correspondence is addressed to him/her as courtesy)
Airman will then be summoned to the Discipline Section & ordered to pay the fine or dispute it,failure to do so may involve harsher action,such as a charge or notation on your service record.
The reason I know that is because the is what HAPPENED TO ME when a garage I sold my old car to used the car on a lunch run or something & got it ticketed for parking in a car park before they sold the car on.
I ended up getting my Squadron Leader to dispute it as I had proof to show that I was back in RAF Germany at the time the ticket was issued in Peterbourough.
Best thing the OP's brother can do is go & have a word with his Warrant Officer.He could also ask over on the RAF forum E-Goat as the would be people there who would be better advised on how he can deal with this 'in house' rather than advice on a civilian forum that mainly answers questions from civvies as by simply ignoring it could damage his career.

http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/forum.php

HTH.
Spike (ex RAF)

That's bollox. The RAF cannot force him to pay an a speculative invoice and the certainly can't open his mail. It's highly unlikely that they would write to the RAF Police and if they did like said no one can force him to pay.

I'm currently serving in the Admin section and I had already ignored invoices with no repercussions.

Fergie76

spike7451 wrote: »

He may not have broken any civilian law but he may have broken a military law.The used to be a charge of "Bringing the service into disrepute" on the books that had a wide catch net that encompassed many transgressions.
For example,my German bank stopped sending money to my English Halifax BS account when I was in the Falklands so I ended up a hundred quid or so in arrears on my car loan,now this was before online banking,so the Halifax wrote to the station like in my other post,and I was threatened that if I didn't put in a repayment arrangement to pay off the arrears,I'd be charged with the above,even tho this was a civilian matter.The same as the OP's brother's issue is a civilian matter.Even if he didn't get charged,it could end up on his service record & would affect his future prospects in the RAF.I know bloke who have been done for drink driving off duty who have not been promoted because this is on their records.

When did you serve - 1980's? That might have been the case then, but certainly not now. You cannot be disciplined for debt. You can be put on warning for an administrative discharge if the debt is large enough, but certainly not for £60 speculative invoice, that has NO basis in law.

Drink Driving is a completely different scenario and does bring the Service in to disrepute, which is why you can be charges with that (disrepute not DD).

I think you should stop giving bad advise, it certainly will not have any impact on promotion prospects.

somethingcorporate

Still a speculative invoice regardless of who they pursue and unless contract law has been changed a charge amounting to a financial penalty is still not enforceable.

Insisting the OP challenges this as part of a wider crusade is pointless for someone who is not an expert and should be left to one of the regulars confident in dealing with a PPC.

Just continue to ignore I think still remains the best advice!

Tobster86

The current procedure as far as I can determine should now be:

-Contact the PPC stating that you deny any debt to them and will not make payment under any circumstances and that they are not to contact you again. That they may consider this to be an appeal, and that you understand that if they decline it, it will cost them £32 for you to appeal to POPLA, and that under such circumstances POPLA's decision will not affect the fact that you will not pay them under any circumstances.

-If you receive a reply, file a half-arsed nonsense appeal with POPLA.

-You are now under the same circumstances as before the law changes, only the PPC are now down £32. Ignore all correspondence from this point onwards.

I seriousy doubt what has been said previously regarding the RAF, but if receiving an unenforceable speculative invoice from a random 3rd party that could be anyone, even you or me, could affect his career prospects; I'd strongly suggest he considers a different career!

taffy056

Tobster86 wrote: »

The current procedure as far as I can determine should now be:

-Contact the PPC stating that you deny any debt to them and will not make payment under any circumstances and that they are not to contact you again. That they may consider this to be an appeal, and that you understand that if they decline it, it will cost them £32 for you to appeal to POPLA, and that under such circumstances POPLA's decision will not affect the fact that you will not pay them under any circumstances.

-If you receive a reply, file a half-arsed nonsense appeal with POPLA.

-You are now under the same circumstances as before the law changes, only the PPC are now down £32. Ignore all correspondence from this point onwards.

I seriousy doubt what has been said previously regarding the RAF, but if receiving an unenforceable speculative invoice from a random 3rd party that could be anyone, even you or me, could affect his career prospects; I'd strongly suggest he considers a different career!

This just sums it up, I am sorry people are disagreeing with me, but its my opinion that we should be advising everyone to appeal to the parking company providing they are in the AOS , and its in England and Wales (though I am checking that) . The reason is that anyone who receives an invoice is in a fight, why let the ticket companies dictate what is happening? why let them try and enforce their will on you?

If I was coming here for the first time, and I was a few years ago, I got seriously annoyed by a two bit company trying to fine me, but there was nothing I could do except come on the forum and advice people of what I learned, there was no fighting back then, it was just ignoring. People coming here can make a serious impact on these companies finances, and I am sure enough will be angry enough to do so.

Tobster86

Maybe, but making it clear it's an in-their-face pseudo appeal, only necessary so the next stage of screwing by POPLA can be achieved if they want to try it on.

[edit] this was in response to the post before all that whiney nonsense.

taffy056

IanManc wrote: »

Schedule 4 Subsection 2(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 contains the new legislation relating to parking enforcement.

The subsection says "The reference in the definition "parking charge" to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).

Yes and with the new legislation, it doesn't make the invoice any more enforceable.

IanManc wrote: »

That means where a parking company puts up a notice saying what the sum is - which is what we used to refer to coloquially as a 'penalty charge' - then that sum is the "parking charge" that can be pursued by the company against the driver, or if he isn't identified, the keeper.

Its not a penalty, and it still does not make this enforceable

IanManc wrote: »

Although the new legislation stops rogue clampers on private land, it has completely played into the hands of the parking companies in relation to their penalty notices and their enforcement. .

Its not a penalty, and it still does not make this enforceable. And this is the biggest red herring ever, we are happy its here.

IanManc wrote: »

I studied the legislation carefully before I posted on this topic. Everything I said in my original posting is correct, and all the people who have made spiteful comments in response to it are wrong.

Really ? So all the time you were saying penalty charges you were correct ? Basically you are utterly wrong, if you want to throw your toys out when challenged that is up to you, do you want me to get you a dummy?

IanManc wrote: »

I have only ever posted on these forums to be helpful to others, and only when I have known what I am talking about - as is the case here.

Maybe so, but can't you accept you are wrong? We have studied this for over a year

IanManc wrote: »

However, I will never post on these forums again, nor read them in future. Life's too short to waste time engaging with the sort of people who have made the comments that have appeared on this thread.

Bye everyone.

Bye

Coupon-mad

jizzler wrote: »

Don't you just love it when nerds who nearly spend all the life on here fight amongst themselves ?

Strange, I didn't see that? IanManc has never been on this forum before to my knowledge.

I do looooove the idea of PPCs paying £32+ a pop at POPLA though!:rotfl: