New posters and lack of information about PPC

Snakes_Belly

There seems to be a reluctance to provide details of the private parking company when a poster initially posts on the forum. It is useful to forum members to know which PPC is involved. There is differing advice depending on whether they are registered with the BPA or the IPC with regard to appeals. 
 
PPC's also have their own modus operandi. Some are litigous and will most certainly take court action and others not so. 

As long as personal details and car registration numbers are not given out it is important that as much information as possible is given so that the regulars can point in the right direction straight away.   
 

Umkomaas

Right on point. It frustrates me that on so many occasions regulars are having their time wasted having to drag out this essential detail. Then we often get a jumbled or unclear acronym requiring further enquiry. Don't start me on those who believe their case is so unique that it requires all the tactics MI5 would employ - shhhhh!

D_P_Dance

There also seems to be a reluctance on the part of many OPs to read the stickies and  use a search engine.  

Le_Kirk

A very worthwhile effort @Snakes_Belly but if new posters cannot even be bothered (in some cases claim they cannot see) the NEWBIE sticky, why would they read (or even find) your post?

Snakes_Belly

I felt like I had to post because I had seen a number of cases recently where the OP was reluctant to name the PPC.  

The forum not only helps the posters fight these claims but fight them in a way that causes the least stress and time. Stress is bad and causes illness.

 
Regulars (BTY I don't include myself as I have limited knowledge and mainly focus on one particular company and sister company) have a good knowledge of how each claim needs to be approached.

An example of this would be that in exceptional circumstances it can be worth making an appeal via the IAS. Reason being is that a certain company does not fight these appeals. The IAS would most certainly have rejected the appeal however if the PPC does not respond the appellant wins. That knowledge by a regular (I think CM) on the forum saved the poster a lot of stress and time. I would point out though that usually appeals to the IAS are not recommended as they are usually rejected making it a waste of time and a bruising experience.

Same with applying to the supermarket or landowner. Beamer wrote a letter for the poster to send to Marks and Spencer's CEO. Job done with little stress for the poster who I think was an elderly person.

To make the forum as effective as possible it's important to know what and who they are dealing with.
 


 

prowla

Just have a cut&paste reply ready to post in reply to newbies:

"Hi, sorry to hear about your issue; I suggest you start off as follows: look <here>, read <this>, post the name of the PPC, don't post your own name, etc."

Then there's nothing to stress about when people come here not sure of what they should do...

Snakes_Belly

prowla said:

Then there's nothing to stress about when people come here not sure of what they should do...

Of course people are stressed. There is nothing worse that the sick feeling in your stomach when you see the ticket on your car. 

Some of these claims can be challenged with very little work and others will end up in court. Knowledge helps to differentiate which claims can be fought easily and others not so. Those that do take more time are usually successful. 




 
 

Le_Kirk

prowla said:

Just have a cut&paste reply ready to post in reply to newbies:

"Hi, sorry to hear about your issue; I suggest you start off as follows: look <here>, read <this>, post the name of the PPC, don't post your own name, etc."

Then there's nothing to stress about when people come here not sure of what they should do...

I suspect there are several regulars who have done exactly that; mine says RTFM or NEWBIE sticky as we call it!

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly said:

prowla said:

Then there's nothing to stress about when people come here not sure of what they should do...

Of course people are stressed. There is nothing worse that the sick feeling in your stomach when you see the ticket on your car. 

Some of these claims can be challenged with very little work and others will end up in court. Knowledge helps to differentiate which claims can be fought easily and others not so. Those that do take more time are usually successful. 

I agree with your comments.  Problem is we are dealing with all types of people on here, very few can do this and be a success.  You are a good example and you had to pay little more than a Costa coffee to which I am sure SRS LOVED ???

What must be impressed on people is that it will probably go to court because we have a few arrogant so called legals plying their trade on a scam.
It must also be stressed that if it does go to court, it's no big deal as it's just sitting in room with a judge and the claimants legal rep who I must say are useless.  If the case is lost then simply pay up, no handcuffs, no threat of prison .... just get on with your life BUT avoid areas where scammers hang out

It must also be impressed that the Witness statement these legals send out are very flawed, they repeat themselves, they use copy and paste. They rely upon the information their client gives them without fully understanding reality.   

Recently, I read a BWLegal WS written by one of their paralegals.  Frankly it was so amusing, with many repeats, clearly a lot of copy and paste and very flawed
YES, they enclosed a copy of the court order of the Salisbury appeal hoping this is a magic wand.
Trouble is, that case was much ado about nothing. The judge making reference to the Beavis case  and debt collection fees not being mentioned.   Why should the Supreme court judges even go down that route when the case was about the fairness of a parking charge. The court did say that the parking charge was fair as it included the costs of operating the scheme.   BWLegal think this is a golden bullet when infact it is a damp squib and a very feeble attempt to confuse a judge

One assumes that all county courts will know about the Salisbury case. Whilst we still include Double recovery and Abuse of process, it appears the judges who are smarter than the legals think,  will now dismiss cases for host of other reasons. And, as we see all over the county court system the fake £60 is not allowed.
The likes of BWLegal are wasting their time and this forum is miles ahead despite their desperate bid to knock members on here.  

So what's there to be nervous about with such a flawed system and forum members with a much better understanding of the scam. >>>>> AS LONG AS THE OP LISTENS AND READS

Snakes_Belly

"You are a good example and you had to pay little more than a Costa coffee to which I am sure SRS LOVED ???"

Thanks Beamer,

It was costly for them. I actually thought that I had about a 50/50 chance of success and I was satisfied with the outcome even though technically I did not win.

What I have never mentioned is that on the day that I received the PCN, I was going to a saleroom to bid on an auction lot that I needed to view beforehand as condition was paramount. I got the item for a very good price. It could though have been very expensive

Le_Kirk

beamerguy said:

So what's there to be nervous about with such a flawed system and forum members with a much better understanding of the scam. >>>>> AS LONG AS THE OP LISTENS AND READS

And there is the problem!