NTK from Dean Clough

Coupon-mad

But overall, I was under the impression my overall strategy should be to decline to pay, and wait for them to either not bother to, or try but fail to, sue me, rather than appeal to PoPLA?

What's the disadvantage of the former over the latter?

We have not advised IGNORING for over two years!

Advantage POPLA! This means it costs the PPC £27 plus VAT only to lose! There is no way Dean Clough tickets would be complaint with the POFA and neither would their charge be a GPEOL (see the newbies thread).

If they are an IPC firm then we say don't bother with IAS (but that's a different kettle of fish than POPLA). POPLA is winnable.

bonj

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We have not advised IGNORING for over two years!

Advantage POPLA! This means it costs the PPC £27 plus VAT only to lose! There is no way Dean Clough tickets would be complaint with the POFA and neither would their charge be a GPEOL (see the newbies thread).

If they are an IPC firm then we say don't bother with IAS (but that's a different kettle of fish than POPLA). POPLA is winnable.

Hmm. Not challenging it, but just out of curiosity, can I just ask why the advice is not to ignore?
I don't particularly want to hammer them into the ground or teach them a lesson*, I just don't want to give them any of my money.

*I'm quite happy to though if that's a general campaigning aim that this forum promotes in general.

Marktheshark

I would play hard ball, send it back with a letter saying that it is not a compliant NTK and the keeper therefore has no keeper liability under POFA 2012 until you send one.

hoohoo

bonj wrote: »

Hmm. Not challenging it, but just out of curiosity, can I just ask why the advice is not to ignore?
I don't particularly want to hammer them into the ground or teach them a lesson*, I just don't want to give them any of my money.

*I'm quite happy to though if that's a general campaigning aim that this forum promotes in general.

Because they have 6 years to take you to court, and their attitude may depend on the PE v Beavis case to be heard in Feb 2015.

Coupon-mad

bonj wrote: »

Hmm. Not challenging it, but just out of curiosity, can I just ask why the advice is not to ignore?
I don't particularly want to hammer them into the ground or teach them a lesson*, I just don't want to give them any of my money.

*I'm quite happy to though if that's a general campaigning aim that this forum promotes in general.

Because 2 years ago we used to say 'ignore' because PPCs so rarely tried court it was unheard of, almost. Then ParkingEye (who had never previously seen a court room more than a couple of times v a motorist) developed into a monster and now they issue court papers to something like 20,000 ignorers every year. Think what will happen with all the other PPCs if PE win at the Court of Appeal v Beavis in February, they will all be waiting in the wings with databases full of names & addresses of ignorers like you, and some firms will undoubtedly start suing.

That's why the advice changed 2 years ago, because PE 'went ape' and yet, conversely, we had also found out how to stuff them at POPLA. So the advice is the same for all BPA members, stuff them at POPLA and the whole threat is gone. Don't be an ignorer whose details are kept on a database, a potential victim who could later be sued even 4 years down the line when you've moved house, and get an automatic CCJ - just like PE have inflicted on lots of people. Happens all the time.

And yet we win at POPLA against 'monster' PE (and others) all the time - so there is no comparison in the two approaches and POPLA is a no-brainer.

bazster

In this instance we seem to be dealing with a clever-!!!!!! landowner who, in reality, does not seem to have much idea of what he's doing. Wiping the floor with him at PoPLA may well teach him a salutary lesson to the benefit of future potential "victims".

bonj

Ok, thanks. Can see why that's good advice then. Can find lots of forum posts referencing it, but just out of interest, what's special about PE vs Beavis... is it just the fact it's going to court of appeal?

trisontana

bonj wrote: »

Ok, thanks. Can see why that's good advice then. Can find lots of forum posts referencing it, but just out of interest, what's special about PE vs Beavis... is it just the fact it's going to court of appeal?

That's the reason. The ironic thing about this whole fiasco is that this is not a typical Parkingt Eye scenario. In this instance PE pay the landowner £1000 a week to "manage" the car park. In the vast majority of PE contracts, this is not the case, with the parking company offering to do the job for free.

BenefitMaster

Marktheshark wrote: »

I would play hard ball, send it back with a letter saying that it is not a compliant NTK and the keeper therefore has no keeper liability under POFA 2012 until you send one.

Which has to arrive in time, so don't tell them that until it's too late.

bonj

Oh!
I was just putting the template letter together but noticed in the "PCN flow chart" post it says "obtain proof of delivery", but then it says "do not send as recorded / signed for".
is it not the same thing?

Why not send recorded / signed for? is post better than email or doesn't it matter?!

edit: not to worry, as I've just checked the 'NTK' and it explicitly invites appeals by email so I'm doing that. Curious as to why not to send rec. dev. though....I normally do that for anything official, but keen to learn...