Confirmation of small claims issued by PPCs

Stroma

[FONT=&quot]Okay just had the results from a FOI on the courts about small claims, here are the main ones, from 01/10/2012 to 30/06/2013, some will be from before pofa 2102 obviously.

PARKINGEYE LTD - 2,378
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED - 1,101
UKCPS LTD - 515
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES - 231
DEVERE PARKING SERVICES LTD - 190

The total of claims is 4806 in this time period. The BPA has a lot to answer for, they got pofa 2012 saying that it will lesson claims in the courts, instead we have got an increase of huge proportions. And we still got another 4 months to go on this to get a full year's figures.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/small_claims_from_bpa_aos_member[/FONT]

peter_the_piper

But its nowhere near the 60,000 odd they (said)they did in 2011-12 or was that a Terminalogical Inexactitude?

Stroma

There is that, just another lie to go with the ones previously. I suspect the figures will read about 8k-9k by year's end. And it just proves the point that even with the numbers given, its a minute proportion compared to the people who ignore, it still is under 1% that have had claims.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES?

didnt know they had anything to do with parking

Stroma

No idea mate, there are a few uni's have tried their arm as well.

Kite2010

Even Britannia tried their hand at court, just the once though.

And Perky took himself to court 41 times.

HO87

So, rather than the reduction in small claims court cases the BPA Ltd claimed we are on target for a tenfold increase. Remember, in the last year we had figures for (2011/12) PPC's issued just 845 claims but we could well see a figure not too unadjacent to 8450 by the end of the year.

However, as has already been pointed out, this still represents less than 1% of all cases - based on a conservative figure of 1.8million PPC invoices issued this year (I would guarantee there will be more than that).

If PPC's were as concerned about upholding the rights of landowners and ensuring that they do no lose out because of the thoughtless parking of the public one wonders why they only pursue a half of one percent of all cases given that the BPA's own figures suggest that as many as 40% of all PPC invoices go unpaid? Furthermore, how is it that in pursuing fewer than 1% of those who have purportedly caused a quantifiable loss to landowners that the PPC's have so significantly been enriched?

esmerobbo

Still crap business practice, how much is left for parking eye after their own costs, paying LPC law to represent them, then there is the small matter of those that don't give a stuff about a CCJ and still don't pay!

Plus seeing a lot of defended cases have not yet got too court if they start losing some what then?

The_Slithy_Tove

esmerobbo wrote: »

Still crap business practice, how much is left for parking eye after their own costs, paying LPC law to represent them, then there is the small matter of those that don't give a stuff about a CCJ and still don't pay!

esmerobbo wrote: »

It's not individual cases that count. They are looking to get a reputation for being aggressive. Already it's likely that a good proportion of those with court papers, or even LBAs, settle. And some publicity about cases won will do nothing to harm this reputation.

esmerobbo wrote: »

Plus seeing a lot of defended cases have not yet got too court if they start losing some what then?

That's the big "BUT" that we're hoping for. More likely they won't actually take it all the way with well-defended cases, but quietly let them drop.

nigelbb

Like anyone running a protection racket the PPCs require a level of 'respect' for their business to work. Once their victims no longer fear them then the game is up.

Given how even this year they are taking relatively few cases to court it's surprising that they don't cherry pick those that they have the greatest chance of winning e.g. parked in disabled bay & boasting about these wins on their website. Their approach seems like a legal blunderbuss with little individual attention to the specifics of a case that could tilt the odds in their favour.

bazster

So ParkingEye is issuing some 200-300 claims per month. Given that they issue about 50,000 fake tickets per month the the chances of getting a court claim filed against you after receiving a PE fake ticket are approximately 0.6%.

Looked at from a utilitarianist viewpoint (see John Stuart Mill) it must surely be the case that the sum of human happiness is being more damaged by the stress and wasted time of writing tedious letters and PoPLA appeals to head off the tiny risk of a court case, than it is by the court cases being filed.

And you also have to consider the risk of people giving away their identity here or on PePiPoo whilst being helped to draft these interminable appeals, and thereby significantly increasing the chances of being a recipient of Ms. Ledson's love letters.

On top of this we see that PoPLA is far from independent and is now manoeuvring to help the PPC's overcome what we regard as sure-fire winning appeal points.

Against this background I can't advise appealing to PoPLA (even for PE fake tickets) and thereby affording legitimacy to the whole fraudulent PPC circus. I think the advice should revert to "ignore", with people being given some idea of their chances of getting taken to court (which remain bordering on nil for most PPC's) and advised about PoPLA so they can make their own choices. Such advice would also be relatively quick and easy to give and would free up time for helping bat off PE LBA's for those who've received them.