RAF lad gets Fine from Service Station

HardWorker2010_2

OP,

I have a pile of letters from CP Plus and their ilk. All ignored.

Nothing happened except they threw money away trying to scam me.

Man up! Ignore these scum sucking **** pigs!

devonlad

HardWorker2010 wrote: »

OP,

I have a pile of letters from CP Plus and their ilk. All ignored.

Nothing happened except they threw money away trying to scam me.

Man up! Ignore these scum sucking **** pigs!

I also have a few cp plus on the go, now at the debt recovery plus stage.

Dont suppose i can appeal on the new system now for a ticket that was issued before it came into effect?

bazster

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. 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.

We know exactly where "ignore" will lead: the same place it has always led! As we've all been saying for months, the only thing that's changed is that the RK gets to ignore instead of the driver - and if they are both the same person, no change at all!

It's the POPLA route that is the great unknown. We don't know what is going to happen following a rejected POPLA appeal. For all we know the PPC really might move straight to court. Until we know, do we really want to advise someone to take that risk unless they've indicated that they're up for the fight?

And when some of these do land up in court, some idiot judge sooner or later is going to find against the defendant purely on the grounds that he already lost an appeal. At least if you never appealed you can explain in your defence that you declined to appeal because the appeal body refuses to consider the contractual basis for the alleged debt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking the fight to them, but I don't think it's right to try and rope other people into that fight when all they want is to be relieved of the anxiety of receiving some enormous bill. Getting them into a scrap where we have actually no idea of the outcome is the last thing some of them need.

nicechap

From what I've read ignore is still a valid piece of advice. There's two ways it could pan out, either the PPC continue with their letter chain and let the matter drop, or take the RK to court, whereby all the previous defences come into play, (its a penalty, not a recovery of costs, no interest in land, never entered a contract etc etc.

Just because some people think that appealing to POPLA is potentially a good ruse to cost the PPC money is not a reason to encourage newbies to become guinea pigs for a campaign.

Maybe once enough people have voluntarily explored the POPLA route and established its consequences then newbies could be given an informed choice as to what they want to do.

taffy056

I still don't see it that way, and will advise people accordingly , the unknown is not doing anything as there is now a choice on what you can do. As someone has just advised a RK to do nothing even though they were not driving in another thread, what makes ignoring the correct thing to do when they may want to do something else ? It's all well and good saying ignore and leaving it at that but the advice should be on all of the options not just the ones you think the poster will want to do.

bazster

taffy056 wrote: »

I still don't see it that way, and will advise people accordingly , the unknown is not doing anything as there is now a choice on what you can do. As someone has just advised a RK to do nothing even though they were not driving in another thread, what makes ignoring the correct thing to do when they may want to do something else ? It's all well and good saying ignore and leaving it at that but the advice should be on all of the options not just the ones you think the poster will want to do.

I agree with you there, it's about options and people choosing the path that best suits them - at least until we've seen what happens following a POPLA appeal, at which point more focussed advice might be appropriate.

fb1969

Fergie76 wrote: »

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.

Just to back this up. I worked in a military pay office from 1995-2011 and this never happend in my whole time there. I know that it was the case in the 1980s, but the number of mobile phone companies that thought the military would pay a serviceperson's bill was laughable.

grant_uk

bazster wrote: »

And when some of these do land up in court, some idiot judge sooner or later is going to find against the defendant purely on the grounds that he already lost an appeal. At least if you never appealed you can explain in your defence that you declined to appeal because the appeal body refuses to consider the contractual basis for the alleged debt.

Hi Bazter

Playing Devil's Advocate, it's probably going to weigh more in your favour if you have gone down the POPLA route first before going to court and *then* when you get to court you wheel out the contract argument as grounds for you not accepting POPLA's verdict.

Yes, you might get the obligatory rogue judge, but if they're that way out, they may well find you guilty whatever route you've taken to get to them.

Grant

bazster

You may well be right Grant, we'll just have to wait and see. Point taken about the judges, occasionally it seems that one of them is determined to find in favour of the parking company regardless.

somethingcorporate

grant_uk wrote: »

Hi Bazter

Playing Devil's Advocate, it's probably going to weigh more in your favour if you have gone down the POPLA route first before going to court and *then* when you get to court you wheel out the contract argument as grounds for you not accepting POPLA's verdict.

Yes, you might get the obligatory rogue judge, but if they're that way out, they may well find you guilty whatever route you've taken to get to them.

Grant

That is not devil's advocate.

You outline their options as:
a) fight and win.
b) ignore and win.
c) get taken to court and only lose because of a bent judge and then fighting or ignoring makes no difference.

Take the path of least resistance and just ignore, going down any official appeals process gives this whole sham an air of respectability, far more than it actually has.