Letter to PPC advice

Hogsta

HO87 wrote: »

You are providing far too much information in your letter.

It is the PPC who are making the allegation here and it is the company who are under an obligation to prove their case. You should not be doing anything whatsoever to assist them in this and by telling them exactly what mistake it is they have made you are doing precisely that.

I suggest that you change you proposed fourth paragraph to something closer to:



Don't make it easy for them!

I was hoping to make it easy for myself :-)

My reasoning is, perhaps naively, that if I present the "incontrovertible evidence" it would get them off my back but, if not, ignoring the evidence presented to them would go against them if it ever got to court.

HO87

Hi Hogsta

That is, as you suggest yourself, somewhat naive. This is not a game founded on some fundamental elements of goodness or reasonableness as it might be with other normal businesses. PPC's are not normal businesses and exist solely to establish arbitrary rules so they can then trip their "customers" up (actually the customers of other businesses) and take their money. If you believe that running "traffic maximisation schemes" or real, meaningful "parking management" is about anything else then now is the time for the scales to fall from your eyes.

This is about them getting at your money, plain and simple. To think otherwise is not at all sensible. They will not therefore get off your back until:

a). You pay
b). They are eventually persuaded that there is no mileage in taking the matter to court.

As they may just issue proceedings yet - thereby calling your bluff - you should NEVER give away something that could be an ace. Sit on it and guard it well. My suggested wording calls their bluff and gives nothing away.

Hogsta

Hi H087,

Thanks for your reply. Mmmm you have given me something to think about just when I thought I was on the right track.

Could the fact that part of this incontrovertible evidence is the PPC's own photographs have any negative ramifications? For instance, if the PPC new their photographs were incriminating themselves.

HO87

Hogsta wrote: »

Hi H087,

Thanks for your reply. Mmmm you have given me something to think about just when I thought I was on the right track.

Could the fact that part of this incontrovertible evidence is the PPC's own photographs have any negative ramifications? For instance, if the PPC new their photographs were incriminating themselves.

They can't have things both ways.

Their photographs are either of evidential value or they are not. Having disclosed them to you they can't then cherry pick the ones that suit their case and seek to denigrate (or perhaps hide) others because they suit the case of the defendant.

This is, of course, the very reason not to give them the heads up.

Fruitcake

Hogsta wrote: »

Hi H087,

Thanks for your reply. Mmmm you have given me something to think about just when I thought I was on the right track.

Could the fact that part of this incontrovertible evidence is the PPC's own photographs have any negative ramifications? For instance, if the PPC new their photographs were incriminating themselves.

They are just incompetent, and won't know/care they have cocked up unless a judge tells them to back off or you give the game away by showing them your evidence. If they find out they have cocked up they may send a new NTK with the original photo-evidence. You don't want to do that.


I would do as HO87 suggests along with a strong complaint to the DVLA, plus complain to Iceland that Excel are sending out PCNs to people who haven't parked in their car park. You won't be visiting Iceland if that is the type of scammer they employ.

Hogsta

I believe I have a good defence even if they realise their mistake. The reason for the ticket is for not parking in a marked bay. But as there are no marked bays this cannot be a legitimate reason.

However, I do see your point and I will change my letter as suggested. Many thanks for your help.

I shall also complain to dvla and Iceland.

yotmon

Hogsta wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I'm now at the ISA appeal stage and I know it is likely to be rejected but I thought it wise to go through the motions in case it ends up in court. However, despite it being only 9 days since the rejection letter from the PPC the IAS says I am out of time to appeal.

According to the IPC, and yourselves, I have 21 days to lodge my appeal but, as can be seen by the enclosed screenshot, I was not allowed to complete my appeal as it was deemed to be out of date. For your information I attempted this just 9 working days after the 12th January.

Why was the appeal to the IAS deemed too late. Had Excel pre-dated their letter in an attempt to prevent you from appealing ? If so, then it's worth a complaint to the IPC just for the fun of it

Hogsta

Hi Yotman,

I don't know why it was deemed late. The letter from the PPC was not backdated. I assume it was a clerical error on their part. Presumably they have to register the details with the IPC and that was when they must have given a wrong date.

Hogsta

Fruitcake wrote: »

They are just incompetent, and won't know/care they have cocked up unless a judge tells them to back off or you give the game away by showing them your evidence. If they find out they have cocked up they may send a new NTK with the original photo-evidence. You don't want to do that.


I would do as HO87 suggests along with a strong complaint to the DVLA, plus complain to Iceland that Excel are sending out PCNs to people who haven't parked in their car park. You won't be visiting Iceland if that is the type of scammer they employ.

I'm sorry I'm wavering now. If they realise their mistake and issued a new NTK wouldn't they be breaching the 56 day rule? The date of the alleged infringement was 21st October. And if I presented my irrefutable proof now would that not mean they are even less likely to go to court? I'm sure I would win at court but it is a hassle I could do without. If I was able to appeal through ISA I would have had to present my evidence to have any chance of success anyway.

Also, if I just say I have proof without presenting it, could it not be read as just an empty threat? They may see it as a bluff and call it. Although it would be very satisfying to inflict a court defeat on Excel it would take a good deal of time and effort to fight it. Additionally wouldn't a judge look dimly if I present evidence which, had I produce earlier in the dispute, could have avoided unnecessary litigation?

Sorry for all the questions. I am very grateful for all your help.

Coupon-mad

No, I would not waver. You can say you have proof that you will use in a court. You do not have to present it now. Replying robustly against a scam is enough to look reasonable to a Judge later, if it came to it. You haven't ignored it, you've tried to resolve the dispute but you don't have to bust a gut over it and spend hours on evidence - unless you do get a court claim.

The onus is upon the PPC to prove their case, not on you right now.

I would not give them a tip-off to re-issue a NTK, despite the 56 day rule which a Judge won't have a clue about. Judges are not familiar with the minutiae of Schedule 4 of the POFA, which won't even be relevant if the Judge cuts to the chase and asks who was driving or agrees with Excel that the keeper is 'on the balance of probabilities' the driver. Any POFA point then goes out of the window.

The POFA 56 day deadline should be silver bullet but isn't. You are better off taking a robust stand as you are, I agree with HO87. You have no obligation to show your hand right now and you can even finish by saying that they are harassing you so you won't enter into further protracted communication over the matter.