Confused.com gets Confused

Stroma

A real bad attempt at explaining private parking and how to appeal it.

http://www.confused.com/news-views/blogs/blog-how-to-challenge-a-private-parking-fine?MediaCode=806&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter130715&utm_source=Newsletter

Dave_TH

!!!!!! dont let them defend you a life or death situation!!!

bazster

Lame, so very lame.

Orrin

Dave_TH wrote: »

!!!!!! dont let them defend you a life or death situation!!!

They specialise in getting celebrities off drink driving charges apparently.

I didn't think the article was that bad but I don't think I'll be signing up for one of their "parking packages" anytime soon. One standard letter can be yours for only £25 + VAT and unlimited (in the mobile data sense of the word presumably) letters are only £100 + VAT. Almost makes an overstay in a PE car park seem like good value.

Stroma

I'm sorry its awful, what about the part where non bpa member and I quote

If you disagree with the charge, but the private parking ticket is from a non-BPA member you can refuse to pay and wait and see if court papers follow for breach of contract or trespass.

What about the part that a non ATA member shouldn't be able to get RK details from the dvla ?

Orrin

What do you think is so awful about that advice?

bazster

What is so awful about it is that instead of prattling garbage about court papers it should simply say "ignore them with impunity 'cos they can't find out who you are".

She also confuses unfair contract terms with breach of contract, she implies that a £100 charge could be upheld (by who?) as a loss, she blithers on about whether the car park had empty spaces (huh? why?), she is clueless about the sorts of things that are winning at POPLA, she fails to mention that POFA doesn't apply in Scotland, she says nothing about inadequate signage...

Apart from all that it's fine.

Stroma

Orrin wrote: »

What do you think is so awful about that advice?

The fact that it implies that non ATA parking companies could take you to court, it doesn't say not to contact the non members at all. And all the above together with the fact it's a poorly researched article. And doesn't tell it the way it is, take a look at this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/apr/18/how-challenge-parking-ticket

Orrin

Stroma wrote: »

The fact that it implies that non ATA parking companies could take you to court, it doesn't say not to contact the non members at all.

What is so awful about it is that instead of prattling garbage about court papers it should simply say "ignore them with impunity 'cos they can't find out who you are".

I didn't read that as saying that the PPC themselves would necessarily obtain your details and take you to court, just that court action was a possibility following a PCN. The landowner can still apply to the DVLA for keeper details the old fashioned way for example.

bazster

Orrin wrote: »

I didn't read that as saying that the PPC themselves would necessarily obtain your details and take you to court, just that court action was a possibility following a PCN. The landowner can still apply to the DVLA for keeper details the old fashioned way for example.

The landowner could, but it never is the landowner. DVLA will not issue details to any PPC who is not an AOS member, whether electronically or on paper.

She really needed to say that. What she actually said effectively invites people to contact the PPC refusing to pay the charge, which would be disastrous when all they actually needed to do was to ignore completely.

nigelbb

The problem is that it's not always clear whether a particular PPC is a member of BPA Ltd or not as those at the shady end of the business come & go & change company names. It's also not unknown for other parties (not the landowner) to obtain the vehicle details e.g. debt collectors. The DVLA is happy to sell registered keeper details to anyone & everyone except a company that admits to being a PPC who is not a member of the AOS of BPA Ltd