Updating The Newbie Sticky Thread

Crabman

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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

Yes I knew never to admit the driver, but didn't put that in my post did I.

Thanks for all the replies. Regarding the accuracy of the MSE article, there was someone (MSE Marcel?) who had asked for info a while ago before the current article was published. I have nothing to do with the site articles so don't know why that info hasn't translated into the article because there were a lot of very helpful replies. I had another look at the article and agree it needs to be updated given POPLA successes in areas other than the "genuine estimate of loss."

I would love to switch off my PM facility to solve this issue but aside from not being permitted to do so (as a volunteer BG) I'd still prefer to get the messages and be able to invite them to post on the forum, rather than risk them going away and paying the PPC cowboys.

The main issue is that a significant number of newbies raise the same problem - they followed the advice in the newbie's thread and appealed to the PPC, but they've been sent a complicated response and told to pay up or go to POPLA. Mitigation has been ignored and will be ignored by POPLA so they wrongly feel payment is the only option as they have seen threads on here where court papers have been sent.

I have helped people (family/friends in real life) submit an appeal and have always had it cancelled by the PPC upon appeal (four cases so far this year, three with ECP and one with PE). It sounds like this isn't typical, however, so I apologise for the tone of the first post.

The question (for me) is why PPCs now appear to be rejecting the first appeal using CM's template, when they know they'll still lose at POPLA (which will cost them a case fee). Perhaps enough people who use the template still end up paying without going to POPLA?

I've seen the responses PE sends to the template letter and would not expect the majority of the public to understand, especially as the latest PE responses now contain references to the Beavis case (no mention of the appeal to the Supreme Court though...). On the basis of that, people who are not familiar with PPCs will panic and sadly pay up.

How do you folks feel about adding to the newbie thread (under "THE FIRST APPEAL TO THE PPC") a note that most PPCs will reject the appeal and a referral to POPLA will be the next step?

I know that's already contained but maybe if this was made explicitly clear, they'd understand that further action will be needed and that they should start a thread for individual advice.

Redx

that would only be true for those that come under the BPA , not the IPC , plus some people respond to parking invoices where the company isnt a member of any of those two ATA`s (like Proserve and Ace)

this is not a recent phenomenon, its always been that way that most initial appeals are rejected, so people should not treat the initial appeal as a magic bullet, generally it does not wash and the PPC or debt collectors take it further

there is no magic wand, nor should people expect a board guide to be expert in these matters , that is not the role of a board guide

refer them back to the forum and do not get involved , let them get advice from forum members , which is what the forum is for (sorry to be so blunt)

Umkomaas

I was horrified earlier today (reading on my iPhone with its limited ability to respond, so waited to get home to the iPad) to learn of this proposal.

Without the basic template for OPs to follow, 90% of them wouldn't have the first clue as to how to pen a response to a NtK. Most would be sure to immediately incriminate themselves within the opening paragraph with plenty of 'me', 'myself' and 'I's'. Game over for lots of them.

Without the sticky (and there are still loads of OPs who still can't find it even sitting on top of the first page in block capitals), letting it go into free-fall on the forum, the regulars would be frustrated by more and more 'help, help, help, yelp' posts than we get now.

There are only a very small number of regulars contributing substantive advice, and if we became forced into reading and amending drafts of very naive OP initial appeals, which would still have very little prospect of success, for those of us still prepared to 'hang around', we'd be totally bogged down and less able to help at the more detailed/complex end of things. The PPCs would be delighted.

Perhaps there does need a block capital, red ink OP-aimed 'disclaimer' at the top and bottom of the initial appeal, but only C-m can do any such amendment on that.

I prefer that no others actually start adding to the sticky (unless C-m has looked it over and agreed it) otherwise it will just descend into a discussion document and littered with even more 'help, help, help, yelps'!

My thoughts......

Crabman

Don't worry, only Coupon-mad can edit the newbie's thread and that's not going to change. However, I can't do nothing as it's incredibly annoying to hear newbies give up and say they'll pay or have paid... they're effectively at the POPLA stage (if the PPC is a member of course) where they *should* win and yet they give in and pay up.

Another suggestion I may as well post here for Coupon-mad to consider instead of sending via PM - how about pasting the following button (with the hyperlink) into the newbie thread so that newbies can click on it, which will take them straight into a new thread?



(I've edited the title of this thread to reflect that we're no longer discussing the unsticking of the newbie thread)

Guys_Dad

Could the NEWBIES thread be replace with a revised, simplified one that recognises the current Beavis state of play.

Certainly there are lots of newbies who find the current one a bit cumbersome. I think all of us are most grateful to c-m for the work she did on the thread and we can remember what it was like prior to her very helpful thread. But I do take Crabman's point now that we have the unfortunate result from Beavis and the huge number of cases taken to court by PE. Also, the silver bullet of GPEOL seems to have run into trouble in court.

Would it be possible to simplify the newbies thread, be realistic about the fact that 99% PPC appeals will fail and that the previous certainties surrounding GPEOL are now in doubt till after the Supreme court?

Umkomaas

I think the initial appeal should be caveated with words to the effect 'This is but a first stage stepping stone; it is not an end in its own right, it is aimed at securing a POPLA code which will provide a much more likely chance of beating your PCN. Please note that 90% of initial appeals are rejected, but do not be disappointed at this point, acquiring your POPLA code is a positive outcome at this stage in your challenge'.

We'll need a caveat somewhat a little different for IAS appeals, where chances of any positive outcome is much, much worse than a game of Russian Roulette, where you have 5 chances out of 6 of missing the bullet, rather than 1 chance out of 5 with the IAS. Go figure!

Northlakes

Don't be too hasty. Beavis may be a very specific set of circumstances which may or may not be relevant in the general scheme of things. It will be interesting to see what is POPLA's thinking on this will be and the only way to test this is some challenging rebuttals of the bullish claims coming from the PPC's.
After all Beavis is still under appeal.

HO87

To suggest that the fault lies entirely in the content of the Newbies thread is to misunderstand what actually goes on.

There are a number of issues:

1. Aside from there being a general expectation that internet fixes are quick and easy - especially where they are free - many posters want- indeed almost demand - a simple, easy fix with the minimum of input from them.

2. Right from the outset we continue to have to deal with the fall-out from historic posts that sets up an apparent contradiction - advice on the one hand recommending "ignore" whilst on the other saying "appeal". Human nature being what it is there are always going to be a large number of them who will opt for the easier option i.e. no effort required.

3. The huge amount of information contained in the Newbies thread is in itself daunting and deters many posters and that is evident from the most basic questions asked by posters who claim to have read it.

4. The limited format we have to play with and the amount of information to be conveyed.

5. Don't underestimate the affect of the Beavis judgment much of which is far from clear - despite the fact that PPC's have latched onto the simplistic elements of it. We need to feel our way with that especially as far as POPLA appeals are concerned and it may be that things remain confused until any Supreme Court appeal is lodged.

6. Add to this the utter confusion the discovery of the involvement of a third ATA (the Credit Services Association - with no relevant code of practice) has on the situation and it might just be wise to stick with what we have at the moment.

I sympathise with Crabman in having to deal with disgruntled "customers" but we are where we are. Perhaps that means that we put a caveat at the top of the Newbies thread to the effect that things are all up in the air and they will need to bear with us. I don't think anyone has the right answer at the moment least of all the PPC's.

waamo

If Newbies are confused and not understanding things then they really need to start a thread.

Personally I have no problem with a Newbie who has read a little and got bogged down. It's not a lot to ask that someone does a little to help themselves and these people shouldn't be afraid to post.

Quentin

Crabman wrote: »

.......(I've edited the title of this thread to reflect that we're no longer discussing the unsticking of the newbie thread)

Does this also mean your OP proposal is now no longer being pursued?

Crabman wrote: »

..... I am therefore proposing to unstick the thread so that members can rely on the official MSE article:......