How to beat All IPC windscreen parking tickets

daveyjp

Iceweasel wrote: »

How does the driver who gets the windscreen ticket know which address to give when they name the driver and give a serviceable address?

How does the person who lives full time at that address send on the correspondence from the PPC to the receiver of the ticket?

Who pays for the postage in forwarding the correspondence to the driver's real address?


Would it be the case that the driver would need to respond to the PPC and also send a message to the address holder that an appeal had been lodged and pass money to the address holder to cover the costs of forwarding.

Are you asking for people to offer their address to be used?

Its 2014, not 1914. Who needs to pay for postage?

A list of service addresses is made available by an enterprising individual, they also have an e-mail address.

You get a ticket, apply to the individual for a service address with your details and ticket details, advise PPC of the allocated service address.

Service address photographs the letters and e-mails them back to you.

Postgage costs? Nil if the PPC allows e-mail appeals.

HO87

Potential issues:

The larger PPC's identify an address/number of addresses as being "addresses of convenience". Unlike the addresses of solicitors/accountants etc they are not addresses for service in the accepted way and are designed to stymie service rather than facilitate it.

They make approach(es) in the guise of genuine customers to EP1's advertised service and confirm that the addresses are under his control.

EP1 is then made subject of a Norwich Pharmacal Order. Customs & Excise lost the original NPO despite their clean hands and their legal duty to investigate/maintain information confidentiality.

polyplastic

Is there not too much emphasis here on the definition of address for service and not enough focus on the clause setting out the right to sue the registered keeper? It reads that you have the right if you are "unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."

The Creditor will be unable to take steps to enforce the debt because Part 6 of the CPR's require service at the home or business of the defendant and not at a service address. So the PPC has reasonable cause for wanting the RKs address.

As that PPC can seek registered keeper data after 28 days has passed from the parking event, by then, it will know that the driver’s address is a service address and of no use so it will apply for data. As it obtains data without any checks, via the electronic links, it can then chase the registered keeper.

Even without electronic links the DVLA will make data available anyway because the PPC cannot exercise its rights without the drivers home or business address because ........the DVLA just sells data doesn’t it?

I think it may be a case of back to the drawing board

Polyplastic

Iceweasel

daveyjp wrote: »

Its 2014, not 1914. Who needs to pay for postage?

A list of service addresses is made available by an enterprising individual, they also have an e-mail address.

You get a ticket, apply to the individual for a service address with your details and ticket details, advise PPC of the allocated service address.

Service address photographs the letters and e-mails them back to you.

Postgage costs? Nil if the PPC allows e-mail appeals.

Fair enough - it's not as though anyone is going to have to actually do anything with the paperwork that the PPC would send.

It seems that it could well work - I was playing a bit of the devil's advocate looking for pitfalls in the system.

HO87

polyplastic wrote: »

Is there not too much emphasis here on the definition of address for service and not enough focus on the clause setting out the right to sue the registered keeper? It reads that you have the right if you are "unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."

POFA further defines the address for service of the driver and the "...for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted" is satisfied by the service EP1 proposes.

polyplastic wrote: »

The Creditor will be unable to take steps to enforce the debt because Part 6 of the CPR's require service at the home or business of the defendant and not at a service address. So the PPC has reasonable cause for wanting the RKs address.

In this situation POFA trumps Pt 6 CPR though strangely not in the case of registered keepers.

polyplastic wrote: »

As that PPC can seek registered keeper data after 28 days has passed from the parking event, by then, it will know that the driver’s address is a service address and of no use so it will apply for data. As it obtains data without any checks, via the electronic links, it can then chase the registered keeper.

Whilst it maybe that in current trials PPC's have not pursued things further that does not preclude them from doing so out to the 6 year limit on proceedings. Many PPC's did nothing once they reached what was effectively the same impasse pre-POFA until some PPC's (notably VCS/Excel) launched a number of NPO proceedings. Some were won others failed. At some stage - based on well established form - the head of steam will be sufficient for someone to press the "Action" button.

EnigmaPart1

Indeed i remember Excel trying for an NPO over in Melton county court. They didn't get it from it I remember
The issue of NPO's has been thought of and the way in which customer data is retained puts paid to that idea. So that issue has been put to bed by us sometime ago.

EnigmaPart1

Iceweasel wrote: »

Fair enough - it's not as though anyone is going to have to actually do anything with the paperwork that the PPC would send.

It seems that it could well work - I was playing a bit of the devil's advocate looking for pitfalls in the system.

This will work. People should be in no doubt that is the solution with regards to those IPC members

Remember this isnt needed for BPA members due to a proper and fair appeals service in POPLA.

I am not going to fail on this and there is enough financial backing to make it work.

Coupon-mad

This will end in tears.

HO87

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

Indeed i remember Excel trying for an NPO over in Melton county court. They didn't get it from it I remember

Correct. We were both going to attend I seem to recall. The hearing was relisted and it was rejected on the second application.

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

The issue of NPO's has been thought of and the way in which customer data is retained puts paid to that idea. So that issue has been put to bed by us sometime ago.

Good. Makes sure that our dear readers are aware of it too.

Coupon-mad

Not a good idea. Do not use a service address.