PCN Company Claim POPLA Rejected Claim

TipsyTaylor

Hot_Bring wrote: »

I prod PPCs quite regularly but it's obviously a personal choice.

You could go back with something like :

"Your GPEOL doesn't conform to contract law, as well you know. You can carry on sending your pointless threats if you like but it's your money you are wasting. Issue court papers or shut up."

I regularly send something similar to G24 and strangely they now ignore me. :rotfl:

I would LOVE more gems like this if possible. Would really like to construct an email that put them firmly in their place!

TipsyTaylor

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Then email back and say something like:



Afternoon Louise,
First: Stop spamming my email account. This is harassment, so cease and desist NOW.

For your information before you send the file back to your client marked 'uncollected':
There is no debt to chase - private parking tickets are not debts and have no credit agreement relating to them of course and no basis in law. Despite your template paragraph about GPEOL that you chose to hit the button to add, I can inform you that CPP do not base their charges on any GPEOL. Because the tariff was paid for the car park, there was not even an initial loss. Guess what, if I had known to say this at POPLA stage I would have won, as every appellant does. Only I was honest and wrote a normal appeal. You may find this useful when you get a fake PCN yourself one day, Louise.

Stop contacting me and pass the file back to the client NOW to do their worst because I won't be paying you or CPP anything. Then I would open up a new tab on your PC and look for a real job, if I were you.

End of conversation,

Some good things to add here. I don't want to be specifically rude to Louise, but do want lots of 'facts and figures' to say I will not bend over and take this!
Any more for any more?

Hot_Bring

Maybe something along the lines of :

"If you are so confident that your charge is valid then supply another POPLA code. It is perfectly within your remit to do so regardless of your appeal procedures. Of course refusal would suggest you know GPEOL will win every time ..... as it will in court if you have the guts to go there.

Hugs and kisses xxxxx"

TipsyTaylor

Hot_Bring wrote: »

Maybe something along the lines of :

"If you are so confident that your charge is valid then supply another POPLA code. It is perfectly within your remit to do so regardless of your appeal procedures. Of course refusal would suggest you know GPEOL will win every time ..... as it will in court if you have the guts to go there.

Hugs and kisses xxxxx"

Is that true!?! I am definitely going to include this if so!

Hot_Bring

TipsyTaylor wrote: »

Is that true!?! I am definitely going to include this if so!

Neither POPLA or BPA rules prevent a PPC from issuing a POPLA code at ANY time.

The_Deep

Hot_Bring wrote: »

Ignore them - toothless liars.

And if it did ever go to court then this phrase alone would undo them :

"In calculating our GPEOL we have included the operational & administrative costs"

They can't include standard operational and administrative costs for running their, corrupt, business.

It would, but you are quoting out of context, this is what they wrote

calculating our GPEOL we have included the operational & administrative costs that as a company we incur solely because motorists breach the advertised Terms & Conditions

Coupon-mad

TipsyTaylor wrote: »

Is that true!?! I am definitely going to include this if so!

Yep but you won't actually get another POPLA code and debt collectors can't issue them anyway. Suggesting they issue another POPLA code is just a way of rebutting the assertion that you 'owe' any money. CPP have never done court, and ICC can't. So you can certainly confidently say that the fact there was no initial loss and no GPEOL means the case would have been won at POPLA if you had used those words - and would be likely to be won at court if CPP want to try.

TipsyTaylor

The_Deep wrote: »

It would, but you are quoting out of context, this is what they wrote

calculating our GPEOL we have included the operational & administrative costs that as a company we incur solely because motorists breach the advertised Terms & Conditions

So what should I say The Deep?

TipsyTaylor

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep but you won't actually get another POPLA code and debt collectors can't issue them anyway. Suggesting they issue another POPLA code is just a way of rebutting the assertion that you 'owe' any money. CPP have never done court, and ICC can't. So you can certainly confidently say that the fact there was no initial loss and no GPEOL means the case would have been won at POPLA if you had used those words - and would be likely to be won at court if CPP want to try.

Likely? Or definitely?

bod1467

The_Deep wrote: »

It would, but you are quoting out of context, this is what they wrote

calculating our GPEOL we have included the operational & administrative costs that as a company we incur solely because motorists breach the advertised Terms & Conditions

But they are lying. Other than a very small number of charges (DVLA fees and stationary, for example), all other costs would have been incurred regardless of whether there was a breach or not (staff, heating, lighting, rates, signage etc.)