NTK from Private Road unloading - POPLA decisions now in.

Le_Kirk

ParkerstNick said:

Sounds like good advice.

So is there even any need for that template. Doesn't it serve the same purpose just to put: 'I dispute your scammy parking charge and I'll see you at POPLA!"

Another reason for the template appeal is that it is written to prevent posters writing their own appeal and inadvertently giving away the driver!

Umkomaas

ParkerstNick said:

Sounds like good advice.

So is there even any need for that template. Doesn't it serve the same purpose just to put: 'I dispute your scammy parking charge and I'll see you at POPLA!"

That kind of 'appeal' might not persuade a Judge that you fully engaged with the PPC in an attempt to resolve the issue - should it proceed to court, any time in the next 6 years. 

ParkerstNick

Umkomaas said:

ParkerstNick said:

Sounds like good advice.

So is there even any need for that template. Doesn't it serve the same purpose just to put: 'I dispute your scammy parking charge and I'll see you at POPLA!"

That kind of 'appeal' might not persuade a Judge that you fully engaged with the PPC in an attempt to resolve the issue - should it proceed to court, any time in the next 6 years. 

I can understand that, but by the same token doesn't the standard practice of  "PPCs don't read appeals, they just reject them." mean that a Judge might not be persuaded that the PPC fully engaged with me in an attempt to resolve the issue?

Coupon-mad

Yes - and Judges have said that before - but it's just an aside.  Not engaging with an appeal doesn't win or lose a claim about a matter of contract law.

The template is only there to stop people putting in stupid appeals and blabbing about being the driver.

I DETEST TEMPLATES - TRULY I HATE SPOONFEEDING PEOPLE WHAT TO SAY.  DRIVES ME MAD THAT PEOPLE WANT THEM.

But I wrote an appeal template and a defence template after many years of not wanting to, purely because the ability of the public to write something that shoots their toes off (usually telling us they hadn't said who was driving, but when they showed us their words, they had) was too strong to ignore.

Umkomaas

ParkerstNick said:

Umkomaas said:

ParkerstNick said:

Sounds like good advice.

So is there even any need for that template. Doesn't it serve the same purpose just to put: 'I dispute your scammy parking charge and I'll see you at POPLA!"

That kind of 'appeal' might not persuade a Judge that you fully engaged with the PPC in an attempt to resolve the issue - should it proceed to court, any time in the next 6 years. 

I can understand that, but by the same token doesn't the standard practice of  "PPCs don't read appeals, they just reject them." mean that a Judge might not be persuaded that the PPC fully engaged with me in an attempt to resolve the issue?

I'd be much keener to hold the moral high ground rather than a conscious descent to PPC level. 

ParkerstNick

Coupon-mad said:

I DETEST TEMPLATES - TRULY I HATE SPOONFEEDING PEOPLE WHAT TO SAY.  DRIVES ME MAD THAT PEOPLE WANT THEM.

But don't you think there is a certain value in using an recognisably signature template for this appeal?

If the PPC is at all savvy it would alert them to the fact that their victim has had the gumption to research their situation and get on board with a community that has resources and the motivation and experience to see through their dodgy modus operandi and probe at their known weaknesses. Wouldn't this feed into their calculations at some point of how much pushback they are going to encounter and whether it is ultimately worth pursuing? Or is that just wishful thinking?

Fruitcake

Some scammers used to fold at the first appeal when they saw the forum template. This is happening less and less now, especially as the scammers income has been drastically slashed over the last year.

The main reason why C-m wrote the template, and why we tell people to use it, is because of the inordinate number of people who used their own words and then blabbed about the driver's identity.

We get asked to provide template letters for complaints to landowners, CEOs, and MPs as well.
Letter writing was part of the English O - Level requirements when I wore a younger man's clothes, but this art seems to have been lost now. An appeal is just a type of letter, stating why someone wants to get their scamvoice cancelled. 

MothballsWallet

@Fruitcake If the PPCs are that desperate for money, maybe they can become cam-girls/cam-boys on Twitch.tv?

The people who those video streams on that site seem to rake in an awful lot of money for not really doing that much work...

#JustSaying

Coupon-mad

ParkerstNick said:

Coupon-mad said:

I DETEST TEMPLATES - TRULY I HATE SPOONFEEDING PEOPLE WHAT TO SAY.  DRIVES ME MAD THAT PEOPLE WANT THEM.

But don't you think there is a certain value in using an recognisably signature template for this appeal?

If the PPC is at all savvy it would alert them to the fact that their victim has had the gumption to research their situation and get on board with a community that has resources and the motivation and experience to see through their dodgy modus operandi and probe at their known weaknesses. Wouldn't this feed into their calculations at some point of how much pushback they are going to encounter and whether it is ultimately worth pursuing? Or is that just wishful thinking?

Yes, that has been seen to be a good effect of the template over the years.   There is value in it for that reason.

Doesn't mean I like templates though, most people are (or should be) perfectly capable of writing an appeal that doesn't blab about who the driver was.

ParkerstNick

The ECP signs here include 'No Parking' and 'Authorised Vehicles Only'.  Am I right in thinking that the following situation is therefore in play:

"The Signage - No Offer

If the wording of the signage forbids parking, then there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.

This is clear from several cases. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.

In UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

In Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim."

from Parking Prankster site

Thanks