A new tactic for IAS appeals (and PoPLA if GPEOL no longer works)?

bazster

Just throwing this out for discussion. Feel free to tear it apart if I've missed something significant.

Right, so you've got your NtK. You now wait until a day or two after the deadline for appealing, and send in your appeal, which of course will be refused for being late.

You reply to every subsequent letter received (yes, even the debt collector ones) stating that you were refused ADR on the unreasonable grounds that your appeal was a day or two beyond some arbitrary deadline, and that you are still willing to take the matter to ADR. You refer to the European Directive on Consumer ADR (which will be law in a few days and stipulates inter alia that ADR should be available for 12 months).

If it ever comes to a LBC, you respond with much the same, pointing out that you were refused ADR because of some unreasonably short and arbitrary deadline, and that you have subsequently invited ADR a further x times. Should they bring a claim you will be sure to bring the court's attention to this unreasonable behaviour.

The more polite and conciliatory you keep it all the better. You will finish up looking like the good guy and their template refusals will paint them in a very bad light. After all that they would have to be bonkers to initiate a claim.

And what's more, there's one fewer IAS appeal, thereby helping to undermine the credibility of the "service".

ManxRed

Will they not shift their ADR limits when the European Directive comes out anyway?

This might only be a valid tactic for the next couple of weeks.

bazster

ManxRed wrote: »

Will they not shift their ADR limits when the European Directive comes out anyway?

This might only be a valid tactic for the next couple of weeks.

Well yes, I am kind've assuming they will not do so! Can you really see PPC's being willing to wait up to 12 months before they unleash the hounds? If so, then we simply advise everyone to appeal on day 364! That'll create a nice hole in their cashflow!

The 12-month stipulation obviously comes about on the understanding that in most businesses both consumer and trader are happy with most transactions so ADR is not necessary, and in most disputes the trader will already have been paid anyway so the dispute is typically about whether the consumer gets his money back (or how much).

The PPC "industry" fails badly to fit that model because in every single transaction the consumer is guaranteed to be disgruntled and reluctant to pay. What a shame...

ManxRed

Agree. We wait with anticipation to see if the PPCs will allow a 12 month appeal window.

They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Shame.

TDA

As it's a Directive, we will obviously need to wait to see the manner that Parliament choose to implement it in before we can say with any certainty whether this would work.

As an example, Parliament may introduce regulations that state that ADR needs to be available for 12 months for transactions involving goods, but for a lesser amount of time for those involving services (which would make sense given if you are dissatisfied with a service you are normally very much aware of that at the time, not 12 months later).

We shall just have to wait and see.

ColliesCarer

TDA wrote: »

......but for a lesser amount of time for those involving services (which would make sense given if you are dissatisfied with a service you are normally very much aware of that at the time, not 12 months later).

Not sure it would make sense to differentiate.
What is the service?
The provision of a parking space or the service of how they (mis)handle their claim against you.

There have been cases here when people were not aware any parking charge had been issued until much longer than 12 months after the parking event and were being denied access to an appeal

TDA

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Not sure it would make sense to differentiate.
What is the service?
The provision of a parking space or the service of how they (mis)handle their claim against you.

There have been cases here when people were not aware any parking charge had been issued until much longer than 12 months after the parking event and were being denied access to an appeal

The service is obviously the provision of the parking space.

I agree with you that it would be unjust for people to be denied ADR at that stage in such circumstances, just pointing out that EU Directives give member states fairly wide discretion on how they implement and achieve the aims set out in the directive.

Parliament may very well differentiate between goods and services in such circumstances, particularly because they are unlikely to have parking contracts at the forefront of their minds when drafting the legislation, given how such contracts operate so counter-intuitively to 99% of normal "service" contracts.

Coupon-mad

Another tactic is to write and say to the PPC that if they make POPLA available as the only ADR that is seen to be independent, has a Scrutiny panel (and about to be run by the Ombudsman Services rather than London Councils), then you will consider appealing further - but not otherwise because there is no statutory requirement to 'appeal' against a speculative invoice. And the case clearly differs from Beavis (pretty much all cases differ) so if they take the matter to Court you will defend it robustly.

ColliesCarer

TDA wrote: »

The service is obviously the provision of the parking space.

I agree with you that it would be unjust for people to be denied ADR at that stage in such circumstances, just pointing out that EU Directives give member states fairly wide discretion on how they implement and achieve the aims set out in the directive.

Parliament may very well differentiate between goods and services in such circumstances, particularly because they are unlikely to have parking contracts at the forefront of their minds when drafting the legislation, given how such contracts operate so counter-intuitively to 99% of normal "service" contracts.

I understood that you are talking in general. However, I was making a point that you are not correct when you say "(which would make sense given if you are dissatisfied with a service you are normally very much aware of that at the time, not 12 months later)."

It doesn't make sense for you to make that point because there are many services we may not be aware we are dissatisfied with at the time or even shortly after - not only in the parking "skimdustry",

If I have dentistry work done, it may take many months before I become aware that the service was inadequate.

Other services that fall into this category could be financial advice, medical treatment, building work, building surveys etc etc.

The only thing that would make sense is that ADR is available for 12 months after the person first became aware of the issue.

TDA

ColliesCarer wrote: »

I understood that you are talking in general. However, I was making a point that you are not correct when you say "(which would make sense given if you are dissatisfied with a service you are normally very much aware of that at the time, not 12 months later)."

It doesn't make sense for you to make that point because there are many services we may not be aware we are dissatisfied with at the time or even shortly after - not only in the parking "skimdustry",

If I have dentistry work done, it may take many months before I become aware that the service was inadequate.

Other services that fall into this category could be financial advice, medical treatment, building work, building surveys etc etc.

The only thing that would make sense is that ADR is available for 12 months after the person first became aware of the issue.

Fair point

HO87

I'm with ColliesCarer here and specifically in respect of PCN's and especially so with the increasing use of ANPR.

A keeper may not be aware of the "service" for some weeks after it was allegedly provided and in any event there can be no guarantee that the keeper was the direct recipient of the purported service. The time delay is aggravated by those PPC's that have decided that POFA is far too onerous to adhere too and have reverted to processes that predate it - despite the fact that some of them were at the forefront of the BPA clamour-crowd that demanded keeper liability in the first place.

The reasoning behind the seemingly arbitrary 14-day appeal deadline is of course well known - it is used to help reduce, as far as possible, the number of necessary DVLA checks. Trying to dress it up in any other way is a nonsense, it is simply another cynical cut-off.

By the way, I particularly like the term "skimdustry" and would like to propose that it is adopted as the collective noun for PPC World.