ParkingEye charge

Coupon-mad

polyplastic wrote: »

I have Just posted some useful details on pepipo for the assistance of the OP. Parking Eye does not comply strictly with the requrements of the POFA. Fail to address all of its requirements and you can't sue the registered keeper.

Polyplastic.

Good point. So you are 'Valiant' then, I did wonder?! I am SchoolRunMum over on pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77103&st=40&start=40

Guys_Dad

It seems to me that the PPCs are getting more militant and some who never usually do court are now going to court.

They may very well pull the papers before the case, but maybe they won't.

It seems to me that there is no downside to going down the POPLA route. It has 4 very good reasons.

1. If you lose, you can ignore decision - and it has cost them £30
2. They may abandon weak cases instead of going to POPLA
3. You get a chance to present your case and then time to reconsider your points before it gets to a real court.
4. You get to see their case to enable you to research their basis for the PCN ( (trespass, contract or whatever) in advance of court.

If your opponent changes his tactics, then maybe it's time to consider reviewing yours.

BASFORDLAD

Guys dad its because the bpa told them they should be issuing claims !!!

Coupon-mad

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Guys dad its because the bpa told them they should be issuing claims !!!

Very much this.

Guys_Dad

Just read this thread on pepipoo. Think polyplastic deserves respect as a serious and welcome contributor. Bargepole seems to agree on pepipoo as well.

Luckily the PPC case has been laid out in their letter to OP. Wonder if they will keep doing that in future.

I think stroma's 2013 version of his current stats may be quite different from last year's - not necessarily in results but in number going to court. If the odds change, then the standard "ignore" may not be the best route for all PPCs. As BASFORDLAD says, the BPA are behind the push.

We need to wait and see.

BASFORDLAD

Guys dad indeed time will tell, I think ignore is still the best advice until we know where the land lies.

But as you say we will indeed see what happens, I think they may just be test ing the water

Stroma

The statistics for 2012 should be interesting reading. Anyone done an FOI request to the courts to find out this was yet ?

Yes and claims will probably be up this year, but as I mentioned previously more than 99% of people won't hear anything at all about going to court.

Going on 2011 figures, if 30 % never paid that would mean 540k unpaid invoices. 1% of that is 5400 claims. Can you really see it at that figure? IMO it will be far less than half that amount

Guys_Dad

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Guys dad indeed time will tell, I think ignore is still the best advice until we know where the land lies.

But as you say we will indeed see what happens, I think they may just be test ing the water

Thanks for that. At least you have an open mind on it and are keeping it under review. It worries me that if there is a push on, those who ignore and receive genuine court papers may cave in as for many, particularly older people, the threat of a real court appearance is a terrifying thing.

Stroma

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Thanks for that. At least you have an open mind on it and are keeping it under review. It worries me that if there is a push on, those who ignore and receive genuine court papers may cave in as for many, particularly older people, the threat of a real court appearance is a terrifying thing.

That will always be the case, hence why there was 845 claims in 2011 and only 49 times before a judge, a fair few of them would have paid.

polyplastic

Incidentally, OPC fail to comply with POFA as well with their standard documentation. As a result of an action I took on behalf of a client they have had a visit from their local trading Standards department.

So, a good tip, don't just rubbish POFA, look at it, learn it, understand it. They are legally obliged to comply with the conditions in Schedule 4 before they can sue the registered keeper. Each of those conditions have many other conditions within them which they have to comply with. Fail to comply with any and they can't sue the registered keeper. Isn't that worth knowing if they ask you to name the driver?

If they send you the notice to keeper in more than 14 days (where they have not issued a notice to driver (e.g when using ANPR) after the alleged infringement they can't touch the registered keeper. I have a client using the benefit of that provision in the Act.

You see Stroma before you condemn just pause for a moment and think that perhaps there is more going on than you may think.

.....and there's more but I will hold my counsel on that

Polyplastic.