Another Anti-PPC Strategy

trisontana

One good thing that can be said about POFA is that it lays down the law to PPCs what they must include in their paperwork. As reported on PePiPoo, this must include identifying the "creditor" who is owed the money. As this letter shows, when confronted with this, G24 quickly drop the the case:-

"Dear Sir/Madam

A challenge to the issue of a ‘Notice to Keeper’ (BPA AOS Code of Practice B.22)

I refer to your ‘Notice to Keeper’, ref xxxxxxxx dated xxxxxxx 2013 and would wish to draw your attention to the following statement contained therein:-
“Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, you are now required to do one of the following..............”

This statement makes it clear that G24 is dealing with its claim in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA. The requirements of Schedule 4 are quite clear in that there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged debt.

The BPA Code of Practice supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers).

G24 has however failed to comply in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4, PoFA 2012.

Whilst your ‘Notice to Keeper’ has indicated that you require a payment to be made to G24, there is no specific identification of the “Creditor”, who may, in law, be G24 or some other party. PoFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of PoFA does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. To “identify” a “Creditor” a parking company must do more than name that person. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has legally contracted.

This view is supported by the Secretary of State for Transport. He has reserved to himself powers to make regulations to specify not only what must be said in a ‘Notice to Keeper’ but also what evidence should be provided. He says “The purpose of this power is to leave flexibility to mandate the specific evidence which must accompany a notice to keeper if it becomes clear that creditors are attempting to recover parking charges without providing keepers with sufficient evidence to know whether the claim is valid”

So, in addition to G24’s failure to specifically identify the “Creditor”, it has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

I therefore expect you to immediately cancel the ‘parking charge’ and inform me, in writing that you have done.

If however, you reject this challenge, then, in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12, please ensure that you enclose all the required information (including the necessary ‘POPLA code’) so that I may immediately refer this matter (and any further issues that I may subsequently raise) for their adjudication on the matter.

I do not expect to receive a ‘generic’ template response and which fails to address the specific issues that I have raised with you. No further correspondence will be entered into.

Yours sincerely

Mr Reginald Keeper"

HO87

Apart from collecting on their invoices G24 have never done anything else anyway. A toothless tiger has suddenly revealed that it has.....no teeth. Useful nevertheless.

What's the betting that G24 don't change their paperwork either.

surfboy1

HO87 wrote: »

Apart from collecting on their invoices G24 have never done anything else anyway. A toothless tiger has suddenly revealed that it has.....no teeth. Useful nevertheless.

What's the betting that G24 don't change their paperwork either.

I am not supporting PPCs in any way, but , there are enough "mugs" out there who are all to willing to give PPCs their money with out the need for the PPCs to bother with "mere technicalities " such as Law or Regulations:D

bargepole

surfboy1 wrote: »

I am not supporting PPCs in any way, but , there are enough "mugs" out there who are all to willing to give PPCs their money with out the need for the PPCs to bother with "mere technicalities " such as Law or Regulations:D

True, but the percentage of "mugs" is falling all the time, thanks to the efforts of people on this and other well known sites. According to one well-connected source, the number who pay PPC tickets has dropped, in the past couple of years, from just over 60% to less than 50%.

Stroma

I knew the non payers figure has gone up lately, didn't realise by that much. I've gone on the conservative figure of about 35% from a couple of years ago. Still 50% is still to a high a figure for paying.

My Christmas wish is for the paying percentage to drop by 10% a year as more and more dont pay these cowboys anything.

My birthday wish is for ppcs to go to the wall starting with CEL, UKCPS and perky towers

HO87

Stroma wrote: »

I knew the non payers figure has gone up lately, didn't realise by that much. I've gone on the conservative figure of about 35% from a couple of years ago. Still 50% is still to a high a figure for paying.

My Christmas wish is for the paying percentage to drop by 10% a year as more and more dont pay these cowboys anything.

My birthday wish is for ppcs to go to the wall starting with CEL, UKCPS and perky towers

In broad terms I agree but if I could add just one thing to the Christmas wishlist it is that PPC's do not go to the wall before their business model is shown up for what it is once and for all.

Besides that I feel multiple visits to Companies House (or at least their service) coming on in order to get copies of annual returns. Like we used to do a few years ago. We need to understand what impact POPLA, POFA, the forums/fora and the general raising of public awareness (via Watchdog and the like) is having on PPC coffers.

Kite2010

What we need is another Watchdog feature, a bit like the flying airplanes video.

Maybe wheel out someone from the BPA whom makes such a massive mess-up (like accidentally saying "the charges are unenforceable"), should wake up the public a bit more.