The PoPLA code fandango

bazster

As some of you know, I'm no fan of appeals to PoPLA. Nonetheless it irritates me intensely to see all these companies still trying to weasel out of issuing PoPLA codes despite being warned by DVLA and BPA, and making people waste their time writing a whole series of letters.

I'd have thought that concluding any initial challenge with something along the following lines might be worthwhile, so long as it is followed up by really invoicing them £100 every time they make you write to them again. I would also copy it to their principal (if known) with a covering letter stating that you hold them liable for the actions of their agent and you will pursue them, the principal, for any administration fee incurred but not paid by their agent.

Then you can have lots of fun setting debt collectors onto them, sending them £5 write-it-yourself solicitors' letters, and even bringing a money claim if so inclined!

This constitutes the entirety of my challenge. Nothing further will be added. You must now, within 35 days, EITHER (i) accept my challenge and notify me that the charge is cancelled, OR (ii) reject my challenge, send me a PoPLA code, and suspend any collection activity pending my PoPLA appeal.

If you meet your obligations as set out above then there will be no further need for me to contact you, but if you fail to meet your obligations I will charge a £100 administration fee for every further letter I am obliged to write to you, and/or any agent of yours who contacts me. By communicating with me (directly or through an agent) otherwise than as set out at (i) or (ii) above, or by failing to respond within 35 days, you agree to pay this administration fee, which will be invoiced with each letter I am obliged to send you. You will also be reported to DVLA and BPA Ltd. for Code of Practice breach.

The_Deep

Do you honestly think that the sheeple would act thusly?

If so you are misguided as those you would seek to torment.

bazster

Do you have to work at smug arrogance or does it come naturally?

Guys_Dad

I am in favour of Baz's general approach, but I would make the charge £25 not £100.

The reason is quite simple. £25 could be considered to be a reasonable charge - equivalent to , say, a letter from the bank. It is an amount that one could reasonably pursue through the small claims court if one wanted to have some real fun.

We can not sensibly argue that £100 is an unreasonable charge for overstaying at a car park and then try to hit the PPC with the same amount.

They can work that out and, therefore, has no deterrent for them if you pitch it at that level. Take it to SCC, and you will lose and their costs could hit you instead.

At £100, it is clearly an empty threat. At £25, with one or two MSE members seeing it through, they might take note.

halibut2209

There is no chance of this working. Should the PPC then still decide to go to court, there are 2 outcomes

1) The PPC loses as their charges are not a GPEOL. Consequently you would also lose for the same reason

2) The PPC is successful, therefore their letters are lawful in pursuing a debt.

Guys_Dad

halibut2209 wrote: »

There is no chance of this working. Should the PPC then still decide to go to court, there are 2 outcomes

1) The PPC loses as their charges are not a GPEOL. Consequently you would also lose for the same reason

2) The PPC is successful, therefore their letters are lawful in pursuing a debt.

Not sure I agree about the GPEOL point. The PPCs are claining that the parking contravention cost them the loss claimed and they included those costs that were part of running their business.

On the other hand, the motorist is not running a business and the actions of the PPC in pursuing the claim would genuinely put the motorist to time, energy and costs. Keeping the amount claimed to justifiable amounts - something the PPC does not do - is very winnable.