Updating The Newbie Sticky Thread

Crabman

Appeals using the template are being routinely rejected. I am therefore proposing to unstick the thread so that members can rely on the official MSE article:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

It is becoming incredibly difficult for me to explain to distressed newbies who PM me why they have had an appeal rejected when they followed the steps within the newbie thread.

I've invited them to post threads but several have said they will simply pay the "fine" - this is absolutely not what we need and this is not the intended purpose of the sticky thread.

I would welcome responses from all members, particularly our wonderful regular members who help so many newbies. If we can find out why appeals using the templates are now being rejected, we can then decide on a way forward that hopefully involves the sticky thread remaining at the top of the board.

Coupon-mad

But the first appeal is always rejected by most PPCs now, it's just a way to get a POPLA code, just a stepping stone. The reason why is because ParkingEye are dragging all cases to POPLA because they think they'll win them all after Beavis (not the case). Some other PPCs are also trying POPLA when they didn't before (but are easy to beat).

IPC firms need separate advice which is I would say, NOT to appeal beyond the first appeal then rejection letter. STOP THERE. The IAS is IMHO, a pointless losing exercise which hands the advantage to the PPC, so don't give them that! Just respond and say something like 'I will appeal further when you provide an appeals escalation service which is seen to be independent and under scrutiny, which at this moment is POPLA.' Then they go into ignore mode - usually debt collector letters unless it's a litigious firm (which the NEWBIES thread does list).

The MSE advice isn't right at all and despite being updated, AFAIK still gives away who was driving which I did say several times needed to be removed last year when MSE was re-writing it and they asked me why it was important.

It is vital not to talk about 'what I did/who parked'.

I do intend to update the NEWBIES thread with fresh information once certain POPLA appeals have been tested.

Things like dark signs and 'no keeper liability' win cases still. Hence why it is SO IMPORTANT not to say who was driving, no MSE version of appeal, NOT the mitigation of what happened, never! People throw away a main winning POPLA appoint the minute they talk about who parked.

''No GPEOL'' - the jury is still out on at the moment - depends how well the PPC applies Beavis in their argument.

bod1467

Appeals have mostly been rejected regardless. We aren't dealing with fair, reasonable people here - we're dealing mostly with ex-clampers and others with questionable judicial histories.

If newbies follow the official MSE article, guess what? Their appeals will be rejected too. So it won't make any difference for you. In fact it might makes things worse because "MSE told me to do this yet my appeal was rejected! How dare you mislead me in this way!"

My vote is to keep the NEWBIES sticky. It does far more than just deal with PPC appeals.

Herzlos

As said, appeals being rejected is par for the course. That needs to be made clear.

The MSE official article doesn't seem that accurate/valid. For one it's implying some of these ticksts are fair and should be paid, that it's easier to pay.

It's also implying that if you appeal to a non-trade operator (which you should never do) and they don't reply, that you're all clear, which you're not.

I bet a lot more work has gone into the newbies thread than the official article.

I'd recommend updating both the newbies thread AND the official article.

Crabman

Thanks CM. Does POPLA actually take any notice of the initial appeal?

As I understand it, POPLA only looks at the legal arguments and doesn't even consider mitigating circumstances.

Would it not be better to suggest people appeal in their own words, e.g. "I shopped at the retailer, here is my receipt."

There is also the Beavis case which doesn't seem to be helping, because although it's being appealed to the Supreme Court, some PPCs are already using that as a rebuttal to the template letter's assertion that the charge is not a genuine estimate of loss.

Crabman

Herzlos wrote: »

As said, appeals being rejected is par for the course. That needs to be made clear.

If this is the case, it needs to be made a bit clearer and we also need to find out whether POPLA actually cares about the text of the initial appeal to the PPC.

I am receiving far too many PMs from upset newbies.

Herzlos

POPLA doesn't know about the original appeal. The PPC will almost always reject it, it's just that you have to appeal to be entitled to a POPLA code, which must be supplied with the rejection. It's why a lot of PPC's don't actually reject appeals and ask for more information in an attempt to spin it out.

It wouldn't be better to suggest people appeal in their own words, or they might identify the driver "I shopped at", and costing themselves POFA2012 protection.

PPCs are also omitting significant details about Beavis, or anything else that doesn't work in their favour.

On a further read through of the official article, the advice is pretty bad on the whole. I'd rather the newbies thread was used, though I'm concerned it's not easily discoverable when browsing using a mobile.

enfield_freddy

99.9% of appeals are refused by the PPC , as standard , as bod1467 points out , but it is the only method of progressing to a non PPC appeals service ,


this of course excludes all IPC appeals , which will fail anyway




to get the POPLa code , you might as well write "my cat eat the ticket" , a long winded affair with all the facts will be read as fast and similarly stamped "deny"

ColliesCarer

The MSE official advice is lacking in crucial information IMO.

I was a NEWBIE here myself 15mths ago and I found the NEWBIES thread and the information in it contributed by Coupon-mad and others invaluable in helping me to get, not only my own parking charge cancelled, but a number of others for friends since then cancelled too.

But in all except one that wasn't achieved until 2nd stage appeals to POPLA.

It can be difficult to explain to NEWBIES why their 1st appeal is rejected but that is the expected outcome and was when I first discovered the forum.

If they have an expectation the charge will immediately be cancelled on 1st appeal it perhaps shows that they haven't fully understood the nature of the Private Parking "Skimdustry".

My vote is also to keep the NEWBIES thread but perhaps the forum could help lighten your load a little by writing a thread to be linked to NEWBIES along the lines of what to expect when you appeal to the PPC, which you could point them to.

Herzlos

enfield_freddy wrote: »

to get the POPLa code , you might as well write "my cat eat the ticket" , a long winded affair with all the facts will be read as fast and similarly stamped "deny"

Which the prankster did initially, with great success.

The only reason for the elaborate reply is to make the keeper look more reasonable should it ever be taken to court - they provided the PPC with reasons to cancel which will be upheld by the court - and allow them to claim their costs back from the PPC.

Coupon-mad

Crabman wrote: »

Thanks CM. Does POPLA actually take any notice of the initial appeal?

As I understand it, POPLA only looks at the legal arguments and doesn't even consider mitigating circumstances.

Would it not be better to suggest people appeal in their own words, e.g. "I shopped at the retailer, here is my receipt."

Nonono no!

But yes to: 'The occupants of the car shopped and here is THEIR receipt' (third person is VITAL!!!!!).

I will update the Newbies thread once we've seen the affect on Beavis on GPEOL as an argument (not really seen that yet from POPLA) but IMHO the winning POPLA point is likely to be 'no keeper liability' which is why NOT to use the first person in the first appeal, which POPLA do see.

I removed some stuff from the NEWBIES thread deliberately after Beavis to stop people thinking it was just a matter of bunging in a template and then ignoring the 'evidence'. Far more important at POPLA is to rebut the evidence pack now. In fact you can even just put in bullet points at POPLA stage and say 'I require 28 days to consider the evidence pack if the operator contests this appeal' (can't promise POPLA will grant it but you can ask and give yourself time to then write a strong rebuttal and pick the holes in the signage and landowner 'evidence' etc.).

I have won a case just with six lines at POPLA, bullet points only, which the PPC saw and didn't contest - I was ready to write a long rebuttal but didn't need it.

No authority from the landowner still wins cases too.

People should ALWAYS ALWAYS complain to the retailer. Morrisons cancels every single one I ask for and some other retailers will also do so if you persist.