New Advice For Private Tickets After 1st Oct

Steadyeddie_2

50% doesnt seem to be a bad strike rate, so why dont the PPC's take more people to court?

taffy056

Steadyeddie wrote: »

50% doesnt seem to be a bad strike rate, so why dont the PPC's take more people to court?

Because they pick and choose the ones they take, like a home bound disabled person who told them that he couldn't attend court because of his illness. If they took everyone wholesale to court, one the whole system would collapse through the numbers, and probably someone would start advising judges that this was a speculative invoice that parking companies have no legal right to bring before them.

bazster

Steadyeddie wrote: »

50% doesnt seem to be a bad strike rate, so why dont the PPC's take more people to court?

Because (i) their costs in nearly all cases would outweigh any payout if they win (ii) plus the costs of all those they lose (iii) they know that if courts saw more of these judges would wise up to the law and they would lose a much higher proportion and (iv) sooner or later some awkward bu99er would appeal them into the higher courts where a ruling against them would be binding and destroy the entire "industry".

AlexisV

I understand the majority of those cases were related to one company at one county court where it's virtually impossible for the PPC in question to lose.

taffy056

devere in Bournemouth I guess

bargepole

Steadyeddie wrote: »

50% doesnt seem to be a bad strike rate, so why dont the PPC's take more people to court?

Even if the PPC wins, the amount awarded doesn't really cover their costs of travelling to the defendant's local court, and using solicitors. It just doesn't suit their business model.

We also strongly suspect that many of the PPC wins were due to bad defences, such as "prove I was driving", or "I didn't see the signs".

Where there was a proper defence submitted, based on contractual issues or, more recently, ownership of the land, they mostly go in favour of the driver.

peter_the_piper

Be a good idea for Mr Crabman to make it a sticky, there will be lots of queries and being able to refer to a sticky will sort the wheat form the chaff, so to speak.

ManxRed

taffy056 wrote: »

devere in Bournemouth I guess

Pick a cuddly toy off the top shelf!

MacDohnut

Originally quoted by taffy056 ...
If the ticket is ignored or the vehicle's Registered Keeper (RK) does not give the PPC the details of the driver at the time of the alleged transgression, they are entitled to pursue the RK for the charge instead of the driver.

Other threads imply that the above is not retrospective and therefore the RK is not obliged to give details regarding the driver for Parking Incidents prior to 1st October. Is that confirmed? Also, what would apply if the PCN Issue Date was post 1st October although the Parking Incident was prior to 1st October?

I received a PCN being the RK of a car that overstayed in a supermarket car park by around 50 minutes. I was not the driver on that occasion. The PCN Issue Date was 6 days later than the Incident Date but both are prior to 1st October. So, in this case, is the best advice still to not respond to any communication from the PPC?

TIA

ManxRed

Its not retrospective.

Not sure what the advice would be for any ticket where the PPC screwed up the dates either side of 1st Oct. I'd be tempted to appeal in the style of a Council Ticket - i.e. the contravention did not occur, and take it to POPLA just to keep them busy and potentially cost the PPC £32. That's me though.