How to beat All IPC windscreen parking tickets

EnigmaPart1

Well here we are folks, things are currently changing and the solution on how to deal with IPC windscreen tickets is here. Currently not needed for BPA windscreen tickets but the solution to the problem is here and it is now time for everyone to embrace it. No longer can the advice on any forum be to "wait for the NTK". This advice is a dead duck.

The Problem

The way IPC companies construct their signs (and the way in which the IPC operate their appeals process means its night on impossible to beat them at the IPC bar the obvious slam dunk reason (which are few and far between). Now VCS who have joined the IPC makes the issue worse and their windscreen tickets account for around 60% of their tickets issued. If the appeals process was like the current POPLA set up then we would not have this problem.

The Law

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

2.

“current address for service” means—
(a)in the case of the keeper, an address which is either—
(i)an address at which documents relating to civil proceedings could properly be served on the person concerned under Civil Procedure Rules; or
(ii)the keeper’s registered address (if there is one); or
(b)in the case of the driver, an address at which the driver for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted;

The solution

A service address is the answer to the problems we currently have with the IPC. This really is such a simple answer and making use of the law to our advantage whilst beating the parking companies at their own game. They wanted this law so they most certainly have got it. It just needs people on here to embrace it and actually see that's its a winner.

What do the BPA/IPC Parking companies think about this?

They all know it is happening and there is nothing they can do about it. How do I know this?, It was pointed out by Devere after the court case yesterday that certain addresses are "appearing all the time with people admitting to be the driver", and the is nothing they can do about it because real addresses are being used, and they CANNOT go to the DVLA as they no longer have reasonable cause to do so since they have been a perfectly serviceable address. Devere stated that all these people can not possibly live at one address and that "its not fair, or right is it" "it must be some kind of internet letter. So writing about it on here is not a problem as they all know anyway.

How well thought through is this?

This has been looked into and tested over the last couple of months with a variety of operators and has been proven to work.

---

If people want to know the finer details of how this scheme is going to work then please drop me a PM. If you want a more hands involvement then again please drop me a message and ill go through the whole process in more detail with you. There is already starting to develop a network of service addresses in the UK. Again if you want to know more about this then please contact me by PM.

Its important we move on from previous advice that whilst has been very good advice no longer works for the IPC and the is no point in any one kidding themselves that it is going to work.

With VCS now part of the IPC (and others sure to follow) then this is only going to ramp up the number of tickets issued.

This scheme will also work with ANPR tickets where someone is naming a driver and you would be surprised that quite high proportion of people who are registered keepers are NOT the driver.

Finally I am backing this scheme to work. Should GPEOL become a dead duck in the near future then this is going to be an absolute bomb against companies such as UKCPS

Dee140157

You refer to the court case for Devere yesterday and I was under the impression the appeal was won on this service address point. But the only Devere case I can see mentioned on the forum is the one yesterday won on landowner authority and a multi layered ownership trail in Bournemouth.

So can clarify this tactic with specific court case details?

I do know that PTAS (and presumably others) have been trialling this behind the scenes, but it seems so far to me that this is going to be a tactic that is always going to cost money to the driver. Can you confirm this?

What exactly is the outcome of this procedure when it comes to a court case?

I do realise it takes me a bit longer than other regular members of the forum to get up to speed, but in that respect I don't think I am any worse than many people who land here on the forum. I am however a slow persistent learner and keep plodding till I get there. But I do still need explaining to me how this works!

Obviously you can do this by PM as you have offered, but I think a bit more clarification on the forum will be helpful.

EnigmaPart1

Dee140157 wrote: »

You refer to the court case for Devere yesterday and I was under the impression the appeal was won on this service address point. But the only Devere case I can see mentioned on the forum is the one yesterday won on landowner authority and a multi layered ownership trail in Bournemouth.

So can clarify this tactic with specific court case details?

I do know that PTAS (and presumably others) have been trialling this behind the scenes, but it seems so far to me thatbthis is going to be a tactic that is always going to cost money to the driver. Can you confirm this?

What exactly is the outcome of this procedure when it comes to a court case?

Dee

This was mentioned in public after the court hearing and was not actually connected to the court claim itself.

Yes there is going to be a small cost to the driver, but its a low cost and it will come with various guarantees as to the effectiveness. There is no other solution being put on the table nor a "developing strategy" that has any hopes of working. This one does. It works.

You see that's the total and utter beauty of this service. It is two fold.

Let me explain why:

When someone moves house for example they move their bank accounts/credit cards and such like. That creates an address link (forward and back links) and those links are reported by Various companies (say HSBC). This is what is termed in credit files terms as a "linked address". It enables firms who run traces on credit files (Equifax run a tracing service) to be told about these address links and then run a fishing expedition.

However because this creates no links the is no "back link" to the drivers real address.

Secondly the PPC will know its a service address from the start and will not properly be able to serve a court claim on that "individual"

You might be asking yourself what happens if a PPC issued a court claim at the service address?. The answer is nothing. Since there is no address link between Service address and the drivers real address it means it will not impact what so ever on the persons credit file and the CCJ would just sit at the service address.

There is currently a service address in Belfast and I would like to see Parking companies issue court claims in Northern Ireland

salmosalaris

Will people want to take this approach ?

Dee140157

I understood how the process worked in the sense that if driver lost at court a CCJ would sit at service address with no link to driver. My concern was with the names being searchable. However I have since come to understand that credit searches do not depend on names, no matter how individual they are, it depends on linked addresses.

So essentially this new approach does not try to offer a stage by stage appeal process with support if it goes to court. Rather it is a small fee, don't bother appealing at any stage , lose of it goes to court, but because the CCJ can't be linked to you, you can get on with your life.

I guess, although I understand the beauty of the system and how much easier this would make life for anyone appealing IPC PCNs (and you could also do this with BPA ones too) , I struggle with the concept of having a CCJ against my name, even though it is not traceable to my address. It will take a while for me to see if I can get my head around this idea.

Having tried so hard to help support a new style strategy for appealing which has had a limited success I realise, I suppose I wanted to see what would happen if an IPC case went to court, but as yet I am not aware of any doing so. As that seemed to me the only way this whole breach of contract or not issue could be sorted out.

EnigmaPart1

Dee

The issue here Dee is in reality is there isnt going to be a court case. In reality the PPCs will know they are flogging a dead horse with issuing a court claim at well known addresses and wont bother wasting their time.

You need to forget about an IPC case going to court because even if that did happen (it does happen all the time we just dont hear about it) then it doesn't change anything as it would only be a county court hearing.

This solution wouldn't be on the table if it wasn't proved to work. We have it from the horses mouth that they know about it and cant do anything about.

EnigmaPart1

salmosalaris wrote: »

Will people want to take this approach ?

Yes. (as you pointed out before you changed your reply "from in reality the isnt going to be a court claim

*If* the IPC ran an open appeals process like POPLA is run at the moment then the would be no need for this service address.

What are people going to do if UKCPS for example joined the IPC tommorrow?, because you can bet your bottom dollar that if left to their own devices they will be issuing court claims left right and centre.

They know full well service addresses are being used as they had 6 appeals in one day from one address. All cancelled. The same goes for other companies, tickets just cancelled. They are not wasting their time.

Maybe time to embrace this new concept.

Also time to flip this on its head and look at the current advice. As the advice that is being given in relation to windscreen tickets for IPC appeals does not work then it can be argued that you are actually risking some one receiving a court claim on their door mat should they lose at IAS at not pay up.

Ryan_Bryan

This is fiendishly brilliant.

esmerobbo

I would have a problem, a clause in my multicar insurance states cars I insure must be registered to my home address.

Also what happens when a NIP comes a calling? Hopefully late.

Surprised the PPC's are complaining about service address's as they seem to like them.

EnigmaPart1

esmerobbo wrote: »

I would have a problem, a clause in my multicar insurance states cars I insure must be registered to my home address.

Also what happens when a NIP comes a calling? Hopefully late.

Surprised the PPC's are complaining about service address's as they seem to like them.

I think you are mistaken.
The would be no change to a customers cars registered address

This process is where the driver is declared, but the address given is the service address (as per POFA) so its pre ntk(ie dvla search), or its where the RK is not the driver and declares post NTK

esmerobbo

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

I think you are mistaken.
The would be no change to a customers cars registered address

This process is where the driver is declared, but the address given is the service address (as per POFA) so its pre ntk(ie dvla search), or its where the RK is not the driver and declares post NTK

Got it! Must take me pills earlier!