Vendetta against Parking Eye

Ryan_Bryan

I think this thread is the perfect place to, once again, give due praise to Bargepole and The Prankster in particular, for their hard work in fighting the people we aren't allowed to call scammers and scum. After the arrogant posting of a paid person we aren't allowed to call scammer or scum yesterday I was mulling over a few things. It put it into perspective that a big company boasts about a victory after spending a fortune on a barrister to take on an unpaid representative in a case over a couple of hundred quid. Rarely can a victory have been more hollow.

teabelly

Now is the time to get tough with PE. If you are in a PE controlled car park and are in the middle of a transaction and your time will run out why not abandon it and spend no money??

Imagine you're choosing large value items. You decide and then....oops, got to go don't want to get a penalty. Cheesing off retailers in this manner will bring more pressure onto PE.

Or boycott all PE controlled car parks and tell all the shops you normally visit you have decided that the deterrent is too strong now that they seem to have some commercial justification and it means you are no longer able to shop in the relaxed manner you'd expect so you'll be using other places that don't have PE or shopping via t'internet. The charges are a lot of money to a lot of people so there is enough of a deterrent to just not visit at all...

Turning this win in Cambridge into a reason to stop using any car park associated with PE would be a great hollow victory for them.

Shops are already struggling so sending them over the edge due to having anything to do with PE would built up far more force against PE than losing at POPLA does.

PE are always moaning about people not complying with the terms but everyone complying so they don't even go there or don't spend money would hit PE even harder.

Where PE have been foolishly allowed to control hospital car parks. I think the POPLA and equality act route is better. If everyone accidentally underpays and wins at POPLA on not a GPEOL then they'll be forced out of hospital car parks in no time.

The above is a proper vendetta. Name calling isn't really harming them much...

Dee140157

It seems to me this last week that PE are getting very sensitive about forum assisted soft PPC appeals as they are starting to issue rejections without POPLA codes on them. I have seen 3 on the forum in the last week.
This may be a new tactic on their part, or clerical oversight. I wonder which?

da_rule

There was another PPC (name escapes me for the time being), which used to send letters to people essentially rejecting the appeal, but asking for 'more information', perhaps PE are trying to do this in a less subtle way.

4consumerrights

There are several PPCs who do various stalling tactics at various times not to provide either a POPLA code or URN code - this is not unusual.....

@Da-Rule asking questions again for free info......no doubt to be added to your ebook?

The_Slithy_Tove

Dee140157 wrote: »

It seems to me this last week that PE are getting very sensitive about forum assisted soft PPC appeals as they are starting to issue rejections without POPLA codes on them. I have seen 3 on the forum in the last week.
This may be a new tactic on their part, or clerical oversight. I wonder which?

Deliberate tactic, and they know it. Which is why all the names called of PE are absolutely justified. The lie - there is plenty of proof. They cheat - there is plenty of proof (I define not sending a POPLA code with an appeal rejection as cheating).

atilla

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Deliberate tactic, and they know it. Which is why all the names called of PE are absolutely justified. The lie - there is plenty of proof. They cheat - there is plenty of proof (I define not sending a POPLA code with an appeal rejection as cheating).

Without digging out the relevant wording again, i thought a rejected appeal had to include a popla code if they wanted to be pofa compliant and chase the RK?

Dee140157

I don't know about POFA compliant, but it certainly breaches BPA code of practice. However we all now know that breaches of COP make no difference to POPLA so they lose nothing by failing to give code, and hopefully (from their viewpoint) gain some people who give in and pay.

I have words I could use for this, but they are not allowed in my house (my own rules!) , or indeed on this forum! Happy to let others suggest the words, then I'm not breaking my own COP or is this cheating too?

Custard_Pie

For me, if a soft appeal is clearly worded that you wish to appeal because xxxx, then it's an appeal. I had a similar issue with G24. I knew that whatever I put would be rejected, so I appealed on the grounds that I did not recognise their ability or right to issue invoices. They held mine, pending further information, so I followed it up reiterating my original point and if they did not provide the PoPLA code then I assumed the appeal accepted. They provided the PoPLA code, as it puts them in breach of their own (chuckle) code of conduct. The point, is that make sure that in an appeal and if a PPC tries to circumvent their own code, that you leave them nowhere to go.

Hot_Bring

Custard_Pie wrote: »

For me, if a soft appeal is clearly worded that you wish to appeal because xxxx, then it's an appeal. I had a similar issue with G24. I knew that whatever I put would be rejected, so I appealed on the grounds that I did not recognise their ability or right to issue invoices. They held mine, pending further information, so I followed it up reiterating my original point and if they did not provide the PoPLA code then I assumed the appeal accepted. They provided the PoPLA code, as it puts them in breach of their own (chuckle) code of conduct. The point, is that make sure that in an appeal and if a PPC tries to circumvent their own code, that you leave them nowhere to go.

If you have ended up having to use POPLA with G24 then you haven't been strong enough with G24