Court date tomorrow: any final tips, tricks and advice?

AnotherForumite

Umkomaas said:

Good luck to the advocate trying to explain the nuance between a case where data was acquired via the DVLA and one where it was not, and why (if AF is correct) one attracts debt collection charges and the other doesn't. Especially when many turn up having little clue about their main brief!

The Proserve model is not difficult to replicate / adapt.

Umkomaas

AnotherForumite said:

Umkomaas said:

Good luck to the advocate trying to explain the nuance between a case where data was acquired via the DVLA and one where it was not, and why (if AF is correct) one attracts debt collection charges and the other doesn't. Especially when many turn up having little clue about their main brief!

The Proserve model is not difficult to replicate / adapt.

Why would a PPC go through all that rigmarole just to generate 70 quid for Gary Osner?

Jenni_D

Still waiting for evidence that non-DVLA-sourced parking charges are exempt from the debt collection charges ban ........ 🙄

AnotherForumite

Jenni_D said:

Still waiting for evidence that non-DVLA-sourced parking charges are exempt from the debt collection charges ban ........ 🙄

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/section/5/enacted

Trainerman

Excuse me for being stupid, but how would (say) an ANPR scammer get my details except through DVLA ?

bargepole

AnotherForumite said:

The Proserve model is not difficult to replicate / adapt.

But Proserve, who are not BPA or IPC members, cannot get DVLA data. They rely on the fact that, in the industrial parks they cover, most of the vehicles they ticket are HGVs with the name of the fleet operator sign written on them.

Also, if they take a case to court, the claim is filed in the name of the landowner. I can't imagine that many of the supermarkets, retail parks or hospitals that the typical PPC covers, would want to get involved in that.

AnotherForumite

bargepole said:

AnotherForumite said:

The Proserve model is not difficult to replicate / adapt.

But Proserve, who are not BPA or IPC members, cannot get DVLA data. They rely on the fact that, in the industrial parks they cover, most of the vehicles they ticket are HGVs with the name of the fleet operator sign written on them.

Also, if they take a case to court, the claim is filed in the name of the landowner. I can't imagine that many of the supermarkets, retail parks or hospitals that the typical PPC covers, would want to get involved in that.

It's not viable in every setting, especially not ANPR. A business owner may decide to have one company that is a member of an APA; and another that isn't.

There are many workarounds that are currently being considered by several operators, I am not going to discuss them here; however, hopefully, they will not be necessary... Time will tell.

Anyway, we diverse, I only commented to correct the false statement that additional charges (I don't call them debt recovery charges) had been 'banned'.

Umkomaas

A business owner may decide to have one company that is a member of an APA; and another that isn't.

It would have to be one hell of a honeypot trap to keep two separate PPCs in profit. But why would a business owner even want to consider that, just so one PPC can garner more per PCN than the other? What's in it for him?

I thought it was car park management the business owner is looking for, not how to give his customers' pockets an extra squeeze so that a third party can profit via the exploitation of a perceived loophole. He might just think he's risking his own profits in colluding with such a stunt, surely far more important to him than any of those of some wannabe Proserve!

Trainerman

AnotherForumite said:

bargepole said:

AnotherForumite said:

The Proserve model is not difficult to replicate / adapt.

But Proserve, who are not BPA or IPC members, cannot get DVLA data. They rely on the fact that, in the industrial parks they cover, most of the vehicles they ticket are HGVs with the name of the fleet operator sign written on them.

Also, if they take a case to court, the claim is filed in the name of the landowner. I can't imagine that many of the supermarkets, retail parks or hospitals that the typical PPC covers, would want to get involved in that.

It's not viable in every setting, especially not ANPR. A business owner may decide to have one company that is a member of an APA; and another that isn't.

There are many workarounds that are currently being considered by several operators, I am not going to discuss them here; however, hopefully, they will not be necessary... Time will tell.

Anyway, we diverse, I only commented to correct the false statement that additional charges (I don't call them debt recovery charges) had been 'banned'.

Well I am not surprised to find that these uncontrolled misery merchants are now in headless chicken mode trying to find a way of continuing their unearned ride on the gravy train. We all know that the ones who appear on here regularly are not providing any service except to their own bank balances. I have, along with others, given examples of good practice that I have seen around the country, so it is possible.

As you say, we shall see but it is clear that whatever name is used for these added charges, the government is intent on bringing them to an end.

patient_dream

AnotherForumite said:

bargepole said:

AnotherForumite said:

The Proserve model is not difficult to replicate / adapt.

But Proserve, who are not BPA or IPC members, cannot get DVLA data. They rely on the fact that, in the industrial parks they cover, most of the vehicles they ticket are HGVs with the name of the fleet operator sign written on them.

Also, if they take a case to court, the claim is filed in the name of the landowner. I can't imagine that many of the supermarkets, retail parks or hospitals that the typical PPC covers, would want to get involved in that.

There are many workarounds that are currently being considered by several operators, I am not going to discuss them here; however, hopefully, they will not be necessary... Time will tell.

Anyway, we diverse, I only commented to correct the false statement that additional charges (I don't call them debt recovery charges) had been 'banned'.

As you know, we simply report what government has said. Mr O'Brien MP has made a statement and code which is not false

No surprise if plans are being considered, if they are detrimental to the motorist, Mr O'Brien will have to consider tightening up the code