Confirmation of small claims issued by PPCs

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

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%.Ok But we don't have figures on the number who stump up or any idea about the criteria used to select the 200-300 for court action.

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. As compared with the misery of those who, frightened by court possibilities, and have limited funds, scrape the money together and pay?

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. So, we adapt and when the PPCs fail in any minuscule way, hit them with it.

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. I can't see any downside with using POPLA, but I do see sense in not using template appeals when any points we currently advise are being ignored.

The point is that in the eyes of parliament and the law the Private Parking Industry is legitimate. Even POFA recognises it. Now do I want to face an uninformed judge (at least where the law on parking is concerned) or a POPLA adjudicator who specialises in Parking cases? Add to that I can ignore an adverse decision from the former, but not the latter.

So, POPLA is not perfect, POFA is not perfect, the BPA are on the other side, but they do have guidelines that the PPCs have to use and POPLA currently respects those.

And the clincher for me is the sheer panic that I have read in this forum all year. Those who are not strong enough to deal with the letter chains, court papers, the long wait to see if sometime, months later the PPC decides to issue the court papers. When I read the advice that you and all the other regulars give - including you -, the amount of time some spend helping because they care (or can't sleep !) I think it's worthwhile.

My conclusion is that we are doing the right thing

bazster

I think we engender a lot of that panic by telling people they must appeal lest they get taken to court - even with respect to PPC's that have never taken anyone to court. In my judgement there would be a lot less panic if we simply told people "on current information, your chances of receiving a court claim are about 1 in 170 (for ParkingEye, zero for most PPC's). But if those odds are too rich for you, then there's PoPLA."

The people who pay are the people who pay, we can do nothing to help them (except we sometimes make it worse when someone wants to ignore, then we warn them not to, and they say "oh to hell with all that, I'll just pay").

Trying to adapt to the machinations of the PPC "industry" (of which PoPLA is a part) just makes things worse in the long run, dancing to their tune does nothing to get the "industry" properly reformed.

Umkomaas

bazster wrote: »

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.

I'm not convinced that reversion to 'ignore' should be (the new) current advice when POPLA is still producing favourable returns. The POPLA appeal template is now pretty well honed and doesn't need too much effort to write it or even to flex to suit individual circumstances. And of course for those with no clue where to start, there is the Pepipoo 'Appeal Generator'.

Contrast that with preparing court defences where there is no (publicly) viewable (or successful) template, leaving the burden of advising and assisting in defence preparation to a comparatively small number of people who must be stretched at times.

If 'ignore' becomes the 'norm' again, I'm sure this will be music to PE's ears when the LBA juggernaut will be put into overdrive and PE will sausage-machine court cases through to default, leaving larger numbers in more of a mess.

I think that if the POPLA strategy starts to falter (especially as POPLA seems intent on cuddling up with PPCs) then that is the time to have a strategic review of advice policy, which might include a more differentiated approach - ignore certain PPCs (based on stats and experience), POPLA route for some, ignore and await LBC (taking the fight to them in line with the Practice Direction on pre-Action Conduct), and where this is likely to fail a strategy for preparing for the small claims track.

Just my take on things.....

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

I think we engender a lot of that panic by telling people they must appeal lest they get taken to court - even with respect to PPC's that have never taken anyone to court. In my judgement there would be a lot less panic if we simply told people "on current information, your chances of receiving a court claim are about 1 in 170 (for ParkingEye, zero for most PPC's). But if those odds are too rich for you, then there's PoPLA."

I can go with that, except I would have others in the list as well as PE.

So, are you giving up on this forum now, baz? Hope not.

bazster

Umkomaas wrote: »

If 'ignore' becomes the 'norm' again, I'm sure this will be music to PE's ears when the LBA juggernaut will be put into overdrive and PE will sausage-machine court cases through to default, leaving larger numbers in more of a mess.

How many people make PoPLA appeals based on the advice they receive here or on PePiPoo? 20 per week perhaps, maybe 30, and not all of them ParkingEye? Do you think that makes any difference whatsoever to the "strategy" of a company that issues maybe 12,000 fake tickets per week?

In fact, it could be argued that we make things worse. PPC's love to take on people who've received forum advice because, when they win, they can bray about it and claim it proves their charges are legal and enforceable, but when they lose, no-one outside the forum faithful ever gets to hear about it. We are handing them their publicity coups on a platter.

nigelbb

Ignoring is still the wrong advice. It looks very bad if & when it gets to court. A vigorous challenge to the PPC denying any legitimacy to their charge plus a follow-up challenge to POPLA demonstrates if it ever gets to court that you have taken the issue seriously & that are not just trying to wriggle out of a debt with a cobbled together defence you got off the Internet. How much time needs to be wasted in writing two letters? A strong challenge from the outset also marks that you are not just going to roll over & pay so if the PPC do pick & choose their cases for court it will be those that ignore them that will be targeted not those who put together a coherent defence.

It's all very well taking the utilitarian approach & it's true that rather like the crocodiles picking off the odd wildebeest as they cross the river your chances of being taken to court are currently low but it's no consolation if you are the wildebeest that gets grabbed even if hundreds of thousands of your mates cross safely.

Orrin

I just posted this on another thread but perhaps it belongs here.

POPLA is just another tactic to avoid paying, along with pressuring the landowner, making a settlement offer or choosing to ignore the PPC completely.

Which tactic is 'best' will depend on the circumstances of the charge, who the PPC and landowner are, and the attitude of the motorist.

If the goal is to help the individual motorist then POPLA remains a valid tactic at the moment. If you're more interested in campaigning or tackling the industry as a whole then writing appeals and answering questions on here may not be the best use of your time.

Stroma

Always go to the principle first, that has got to be the number one advice, I have said it hundreds of times complain , complain , complain ! And complain to the top, inundate their staff with these, and get the message across.

And I have also said that Popla is user unfriendly, its not fit for purpose, and they are an extension of the bpa, its all part of the scam! If everyone ignored, and I mean everyone, these vermin would fold.

The biggest fear for these companies is if the great british public got off its collective !!!! and gave them the silent treatment! Though I know in reality its not going to happen.

The_Bald_Eagle

nigelbb wrote: »

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

What makes you think they don't already do that? Parking Eye Ltd certainly seem to.

There is a link to the advertisement below, but as a new user I am not allowed to post it. Instead I have broken the link by taking out the www. element. Perhaps one of you regulars could paste up the whole link?

parkingeyejobs.co.uk/Vacancies/EnforcementOfficer

---

Parking Eye Enforcement Officer

We are looking for an Enforcement Officer to join our newly created Enforcements Team. The role will report into the Head of Enforcement and will assess and handle a large volume of cases through the early stages of the claims process and will require a good attention to detail and the ability to move from one task to another at short notice. The job holder will need to be proactive, highly organised individual with good customer service skills.

The role of Enforcement Officer within our Enforcement Team has access to keeper at the date of event (KADOE) details provided to us from the DVLA. In order to use this service all employees and potential employees will need to ensure that you have

1.Signed a declaration that you have no unspent convictions or pending prosecutions, including being arrested and on bail

2.Signed an undertaking to tell us if you have any pending convictions or prosecutions, whilst employed by ParkingEye Ltd and using the KADOE Service

3.Signed a declaration that you will only use the data from the KADOE service for its intended use in relation to your job

Main Duties:

*Assessing whether a case is suitable for a county court claim. This will include looking at a number of different factors

*Finding potential candidates for ‘further action’ by analysing a number of key websites/forums and the information they provide

*Dealing with calls, correspondence and payments from motorists in relation to their court claim

*Dealing with correspondence from the courts. This will include putting together the further particulars of claim where applicable

*Ensuring that all case records are up to date

*Analysing information from a panel of Debt Collection Agencies and dealing with any correspondence/appeals that may arise

*Liaising with the appeals team, with regards to appeals/cases that will be fast-tracked to ‘further action’

Other Duties:

*Maintaining (and building on) existing relationships with hire/lease companies. This will include providing them with reports on outstanding charges and ensuring that the process is as streamlined as possible

*Creating and monitoring potential instalment plans

*Assessing appeals and correspondence from ParkingEye’s European Parking Charge collection service
Hours:?37.5 hours per week

*Monday to Friday, 9am – 5pm

*Salary / Annual Leave: Up to £16,500 depending on expereince

*20 days annual leave (plus statutory)"

Guys_Dad

Excellent first post. Welcome.