UKPC "fine" and estate agency

The_Deep

An alternative course of action, if you are up for it, is to ignore; ignore UKPC, ignore Popla, ignor debt collectors, (but do not ignore a LBC or court papers).

They have never taken anyone to court, but have been taken to court themselves by a flat dweller whom they harassed.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

If you choose this avenue you should launch a blitz of protest, to your landlord, to the Residents' Association, to the Managing Agents, and to other Residents, leaflet their cars, post notices in the common areas.

UKPC will I haver no doubt, soon fold under the pressure, especially if they know that you know about the Davey case.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

An alternative course of action, if you are up for it, is to ignore; ignore UKPC, ignore Popla, ignor debt collectors, (but do not ignore a LBC or court papers).

They have never taken anyone to court, but have been taken to court themselves by a flat dweller whom they harassed.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

If you choose this avenue you should launch a blitz of protest, to your landlord, to the Residents' Association, to the Managing Agents, and to other Residents, leaflet their cars, post notices in the common areas.

UKPC will I haver no doubt, soon fold under the pressure, especially if they know that you know about the Davey case.

There are a number of flaws in your advice in this case.

1. If OP ignores communications, how would PPC know that OP is aware of Davey case? An advanced model of Trev's terrorist detection system that now works on mind reading rather than ANPR? :rotfl:

2. Landlord and other leaseholders may be quite happy with PPC being appointed.

3. If UKPC did decide to take this to court, then OP would need to be aware of risks of bypassing POPLA and potential higher costs if a rogue judge was sitting.

I see no downside in going through POPLA whatsoever.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

There are a number of flaws in your advice in this case.

1. If OP ignores communications, how would PPC know that OP is aware of Davey case? An advanced model of Trev's terrorist detection system that now works on mind reading rather than ANPR? :rotfl:

2. Landlord and other leaseholders may be quite happy with PPC being appointed.

3. If UKPC did decide to take this to court, then OP would need to be aware of risks of bypassing POPLA and potential higher costs if a rogue judge was sitting.

I see no downside in going through POPLA whatsoever.

You never do.

The Deep is talking about making a stand on a point of principle rather than merely heading for the most expedient bolthole. Sticking plasters are not a good remedy if the cause of the injury is not dealt with.

One would hope that if the managing agents were made aware of Davey and the danger of them being held vicariously liable for trespass there would be a conversation between managing agents and UKPC along the lines of "Did this really happen? You never told us about it!"

The_Deep

There are a number of flaws in your advice in this case.

I disagree

1. If OP ignores communications, how would PPC know that OP is aware of Davey case?

Perhaps by reading this forum, from managing agents, car stickies, notice boards, landlords, other residents.

2. Landlord and other leaseholders may be quite happy with PPC being appointed.

They may, but there again, they may not.

3. If UKPC did decide to take this to court, then OP would need to be aware of risks of bypassing POPLA and potential higher costs if a rogue judge was sitting.

Indeed

I see no downside in going through POPLA whatsoever.

The downside is that it is, as Mr B says, a sticking plaster, it will not cure the cancer.

Hot_Bring

The_Deep wrote: »

There are a number of flaws in your advice in this case.

I disagree

1. If OP ignores communications, how would PPC know that OP is aware of Davey case?

Perhaps by reading this forum, from managing agents, car stickies, notice boards, landlords, other residents.

2. Landlord and other leaseholders may be quite happy with PPC being appointed.

They may, but there again, they may not.

3. If UKPC did decide to take this to court, then OP would need to be aware of risks of bypassing POPLA and potential higher costs if a rogue judge was sitting.

Indeed

I see no downside in going through POPLA whatsoever.

The downside is that it is, as Mr B says, a sticking plaster, it will not cure the cancer.

I think the point GD is making is that, yet again, you are recommending someone takes a course of action that holds risk to the OP but not to you personally. If you want to take those risks then that's fine but many just want the problem gone.

I'm all for trying to break the system but is should be left to those who are willing, able and capable of taking the risks in doing so. Parking Prankster and KIL being good examples.

In this case, the quickest way for the OP to get this monkey off his back is to use the tried and tested methods. If he wants to follow your advice then he needs to be fully aware of the risk of losing a court case and the hard work that will be required to actually win one.

hush-hush

Hey,

Just to let you know all know I appreciate all kinds of advice. At this moment I'll pursue the tested method, but I'll make a strong point with the agency and the landlord. I'll try to get them to move away from UKPC and this kind of companies.

Cheers

The_Deep

You are of course right HB, many people get themselves in a mess, often through their own stupidity, and all they want is for someone else to get them out of it at no cost to themselves. And there are many on here only too willing to help.

There are others, less concerned with the plight of individuals, who want to make a difference, to bring down the industry, just as clampers were banned by public pressure.

It is true, I am not putting my own head on the line, I do not deliberately overstay, park in disabled bays, trespass, not pay in P&D car parks. I live one third of my life abroad, run a company, and have better things to do with my time than go around getting PCNs.

That does not in anyway invalidate the advice I give for those more interested in justice than saving themselves a few pounds.

bazster

Hot_Bring wrote: »

I think the point GD is making is that, yet again, you are recommending someone takes a course of action that holds risk to the OP but not to you personally. If you want to take those risks then that's fine but many just want the problem gone.

Perhaps The Deep credits the OP with the intelligence to read differing viewpoints and make his own decisions.

God knows there are enough people around here ready to advise everyone to appeal to PoPLA. Do you really want to stamp out all opinions other than "the party line"?

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

Perhaps The Deep credits the OP with the intelligence to read differing viewpoints and make his own decisions.

God knows there are enough people around here ready to advise everyone to appeal to PoPLA. Do you really want to stamp out all opinions other than "the party line"?

What I don't understand is this.

As long as POPLA sticks to allowing GPEOL (and I might change my views if they go the IPC / IAS route), then the PPCs are paying £27 plus staff time to get spanked and motorist doesn't have the sword of Damocles hanging over their head wondering if the PPC will do court when they win.

If, by any chance, the appeal is not allowed, how is the motorist any worse off than if they hadn't used POPLA? Courts will consider the arguments in front of them, not be bound by the adjudication of "amateurs" like POPLA.

Now I have no problem with anyone following the route favoured by The Deep and Bazster. None at all. However, as they may not be experienced campaigners, then I see no harm in me or others pointing out the potential pitfalls. Then, if they want to go for the "ignore on purpose" route, having considered the pros and cons, they would have my admiration and support.

Certainly my cautionary posts on this alternative strategy here and on other threads would have been rendered unnecessary if both of you had laid out the pros and cons yourselves.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If, by any chance, the appeal is not allowed, how is the motorist any worse off than if they hadn't used POPLA? Courts will consider the arguments in front of them, not be bound by the adjudication of "amateurs" like POPLA.

Firstly, the PPC is more likely to bring a court case if they have a PoPLA "win" on the table.

Secondly, you obviously haven't been listening all these years to how contrary County Court judges can be. Certainly I've read transcripts where claims have been upheld after the judge took PoPLA seriously.

Thirdly, and most importantly, there's a point of principle at stake. We're not talking about a supermarket car park where you park under sufferance. If someone has a right, a right, to park on property of which they are the lawful occupier, they don't need to appeal to anyone. It's pathetic, and it's affording the PPC a degree of credibility they absolutely do not deserve. In such circumstances the most appropriate response to the cowboys, and those responsible for engaging them, is a two-fingered salute.

As I said on another thread recently, if someone burgled your house would you accept an offer of adjudication from the British Thieves and Robbers Association?

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Certainly my cautionary posts on this alternative strategy here and on other threads would have been rendered unnecessary if both of you had laid out the pros and cons yourselves.

That really is a bit rich considering the number of times you and others urge people to appeal to PoPLA lest the sky fall in, without uttering a word about how infrequently, if ever, "their" particular PPC takes anyone to court. This forum has a narrow agenda, and in the pursuit of that agenda is extremely selective about the information it gives and extremely intolerant of dissenting voices.