How to beat All IPC windscreen parking tickets

EnigmaPart1

halibut2209 wrote: »

This appears to be the crux, and I cannot agree with you. If the PPC can show some doubt into the validity of the address, then I would say that they do have "reasonable cause". And not forgetting that the DVLA is right up there with the PPCs and only interested in money.

This is going to work. I will make it work.

At the moment is very small scale. Have done trials with UKCPS coming to one address. UKPC, works an absolute treat.

The_Deep

Well these addresses are just normal residential addresses.

You mean that of a friend or relative?

As an aside. If I drive to the car park, get a ticket, and my wife drives home, who is the driver?

EnigmaPart1

The_Deep wrote: »

Well these addresses are just normal residential addresses.

You mean that of a friend or relative?

In some cases. There is a network of them

Guys_Dad

Does this rely upon the driver not being the keeper? Or, should I say, the named driver not being the keeper?

Let us suppose that James Smith is keeper and Mrs Alice Smith is named as the driver and the mail drop address is given to the PPC.

Would the PPC be acting illegally if they used a 3rd party (accredited) to obtain the keeper's name and address from the DVLA?

By then using the electoral roll, discovering that a Mrs Alice Smith lived at that address, they could then serve court papers on Mrs Alice Smith at the keeper's address and then argue in court that it was clear that there was a deliberate attempt to subvert their claim?

It would be very easy to show that the address being used was an accommodation address by the number of people using that address.

If your tactic really caught on, then that would bring the PPCs to their knees (with windscreen tickets anyway). so the simple question is would they not be prepared to spend a significant sum to hire a top barrister to get round it or would they shut shop and go home?

I take it this is not as yet applicable to ANPR systems as that would involve the keeper?

EnigmaPart1

It relies on the person driving naming themselves before an NTK.
It wont be applicable to ANPR or where they have received the NTK who they wish to name a driver. In which this comes into play.

They couldn't obtain DVLA details as the would be have no reasonable cause. They have been given details that adhere strictly to schedule 4.

What should also be noted is that we are successfully building up a network of service addresses accross the UK. If anyone is interested in taking part in this then please drop me a private message.

No it wouldn't bring parking companies to their knees just as beating them hands down on GPEOL doesn't bring companies to their knees.
Simply because it will be such a small portion of the total number of tickets issued that it wont have a big effect.
Just as the help this forum gives has a minimal impact on appeals in the overall scheme of things

It is but a flea bite on a horse!

Guys_Dad

You say they could not get the info from the DVLA as they had no reasonable cause.

1. Would that, nonetheless, make it illegal or unlawful and, therefore, not able to be used in a court?

2. They surely could claim reasonable cause if the address used had occurred many times before and they believed that the information provided was, therefore, fraudulent.

Just exploring the defences of your solution, not in any way disagreeing or knocking it, I assure you. :beer:

EnigmaPart1

You say they could not get the info from the DVLA as they had no reasonable cause.

1. Would that, nonetheless, make it illegal or unlawful and, therefore, not able to be used in a court?As you know full well the small claims court is a lottery, if the RK did ever get a claim, it would be paid in full, without quibble on receipt of a claim. The claim would still depend no matter how obtained (in my opinion)hence why we would pay if the RK got a claim.

2. They surely could claim reasonable cause if the address used had occurred many times before and they believed that the information provided was, therefore, fraudulent.As this is done strictly to the letter of the law then no,it is acting strictly to the letter of POFA. It is made totally clear to the PPC that the address given is a service address under POFA

Just exploring the defences of your solution, not in any way disagreeing or knocking it, I assure you.

Ryan_Bryan

Want to bet that thousands of drivers appeals to windscreen tickets will suddenly get lost in the post. Much in the same way that many PPC letters to drivers/registered keepers do in fact.

Guys_Dad

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

You say they could not get the info from the DVLA as they had no reasonable cause.

1. Would that, nonetheless, make it illegal or unlawful and, therefore, not able to be used in a court?As you know full well the small claims court is a lottery, if the RK did ever get a claim, it would be paid in full, without quibble on receipt of a claim. The claim would still depend no matter how obtained (in my opinion)hence why we would pay if the RK got a claim..

Then surely this is the Achilles heel. The first time you paid without quibble, the PPCs would then simply make claims against RKs in future??

Fergie76

Just to get things straight in my mind, is this how it works?

EnigmaPart1 acts as a serviceable address for drivers. All drivers appeal window invoice prior to day 28 using EP1's address. EP1 then forwards all correspondence to drivers correct address?

Appeal fails and it goes to court, driver does not bother defending and ends up with a CCJ. As there is no previous direct link with driver at that address, the CCJ does not show up on the drivers CRF?