Tesco Swansea - Non validation - Anyone know the landowner? Debt Recovery Plus Pay Now

Coupon-mad

illustriousEndeavour said:

Coupon-mad said:

No you won't be doing that.  There is no CCJ risk because if you move house you simply tell APCOA.

Zero risk.

Thanks, although due to the amount I move this is just another thing to remember so I may just have to cough up. Gives me peace of mind that I don't have to remember to make a gdpr request each time.

No.  Really.  It's APCOA.

NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE HAS PAID AN APCOA PCN, EVER.

illustriousEndeavour

Coupon-mad said:

illustriousEndeavour said:

Coupon-mad said:

No you won't be doing that.  There is no CCJ risk because if you move house you simply tell APCOA.

Zero risk.

Thanks, although due to the amount I move this is just another thing to remember so I may just have to cough up. Gives me peace of mind that I don't have to remember to make a gdpr request each time.

No.  Really.  It's APCOA.

NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE HAS PAID AN APCOA PCN, EVER.

Thanks for all your help. I am considering ignoring as it does sound unlikely but I guess I have to weigh up the risk/reward ratio. The best outcome I was hoping for was to contact the landowner, I'll try customer services first and then Tesco direct. I had another ticket in Swansea cancelled this way. Plan A seems like the best one.

For Plan B, the risk is that I forget to update my address. Like many in the UK, I don't own a home so will usually move every 2-4 years (have done all my adult life) so I have to remember to send a GDPR rectification request each time that happens. Or as someone mentioned, I could use my parents address. This is a bit more problematic though as they are getting on a bit and it may alarm them if they keep opening these threatening letters. 

Without the threat of a CCJ I could sleep easy. I don't care about a monthly delivery of free scrap paper. With the CCJ, it's extra cognitive burden which I don't really want to have to deal with.

Even if it seems very unlikely, there is still a risk that APCOA change their stance I guess. Their profits may start to drop and they may look to instruct the DRP to take more people to court. Seems like a lot of effort, but I don't know their internal workings

Coupon-mad

No, the opposite will happen from this year.  Massive improvements will make court LESS likely.  And APCOA never sue so they won't start now, because:

I am on the Government Steering Group and regulation and a new Code of Practice is being finalised as we speak. This year.

Lots of good changes, including better practices, lower £PCNs and a likely ban on the added £70 that DRP are drooling for.

So, once the new rules are all in place, there will not only be far less likelihood of old (pre-statutory regulations) cases going to court - because Judges won't give the 'bad practice' old cases the time of day - but ALSO the new Code is bringing with it a proper ADR.

An ADR designed to keep cases out of court.  You could by the end of this year ask APCOA to allow you to appeal to the new DLUHC ADR.

fisherjim

illustriousEndeavour said:

Their profits may start to drop and they may look to instruct the DRP to take more people to court. Seems like a lot of effort, but I don't know their internal workings

You really aren't getting this; there is no debt, and Debt Recovery Plus cannot take you to court, they are just Muppets on a no win no fee contract to frighten people!

They just throw in the towel and give up after sending a few template letters, and APCOA if they don't know who the driver is are stuffed.

Grizebeck

Why is some people look for any opportunity to justify to themselves to pay up 

fisherjim

Grizebeck said:

Why is some people look for any opportunity to justify to themselves to pay up 

It makes you wonder why some people come here at all!

illustriousEndeavour

Coupon-mad said:

No, the opposite will happen from this year.  Massive improvements will make court LESS likely.  And APCOA never sue so they won't start now, because:

I am on the Government Steering Group and regulation and a new Code of Practice is being finalised as we speak. This year.

Lots of good changes, including better practices, lower £PCNs and a likely ban on the added £70 that DRP are drooling for.

So, once the new rules are all in place, there will not only be far less likelihood of old (pre-statutory regulations) cases going to court - because Judges won't give the 'bad practice' old cases the time of day - but ALSO the new Code is bringing with it a proper ADR.

An ADR designed to keep cases out of court.  You could by the end of this year ask APCOA to allow you to appeal to the new DLUHC ADR.

Thanks for that. Do we have a date when this will happen? I saw there was new legislation but wasn't sure if it got through the house of lords?

illustriousEndeavour

Grizebeck said:

Why is some people look for any opportunity to justify to themselves to pay up 

Except I wasn't. Re-read what I wrote. In the first instance I was seeing if anyone knew the landowner. Then weighing up the risk/ reward of ignoring.

Coupon-mad

illustriousEndeavour said:

Coupon-mad said:

No, the opposite will happen from this year.  Massive improvements will make court LESS likely.  And APCOA never sue so they won't start now, because:

I am on the Government Steering Group and regulation and a new Code of Practice is being finalised as we speak. This year.

Lots of good changes, including better practices, lower £PCNs and a likely ban on the added £70 that DRP are drooling for.

So, once the new rules are all in place, there will not only be far less likelihood of old (pre-statutory regulations) cases going to court - because Judges won't give the 'bad practice' old cases the time of day - but ALSO the new Code is bringing with it a proper ADR.

An ADR designed to keep cases out of court.  You could by the end of this year ask APCOA to allow you to appeal to the new DLUHC ADR.

Thanks for that. Do we have a date when this will happen? I saw there was new legislation but wasn't sure if it got through the house of lords?

It got through the House of Lords 5 years ago! The legislation is enacted & dated 2019.

page 27 onwards summarises the position:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8736/CBP-8736.pdf

Final Public Consultation & draft IA expected within weeks and the new Code then re-laid.

YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

nopcns

illustriousEndeavour, I am sorry if you may feel offended by what I am about to write. However, you came here seeking advice. The regular members here devote a huge amount of their time and energy providing advice and assistance to victims of scamming, ex-clamper, unregulated, private parking companies.

Some of the contributors have been doing this for well xover a dozen years and have an in-depth knowledge of the parking industry that is second to none. @Coupon-mad, who has already advised you, is on the DLUHC Government Steering Group for the upcoming Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 and is considered a font of knowledge about how this unregulated industry works.

You have told us that you would feel more at ease if you just paid into the scam. By funding the scam, you would be marked as a "mug" for further processing by the scammers. You would, in essence, become a part of the problem.

Aside from the fact that you have been advised to ignore the charge, the other sage advice you received was that you should endeavour to instruct APCOA to rectify your address for service should you move sounds, to you, like an effort that is too onerous, when in fact it takes less than a minute to compose an email and send it to the DPO of APCOA, and therefore, it is just easier for you to fund the scam. That sounds like a fool and their money to us.

Whilst you mention responding to the DRP+ letter, you have obviously failed to even read the Newbies/FAQ thread fully. You need to get your head around the fact that any and all debt collectors are powerless to do anything. They are contracted on a no-win, no-fee basis by the PPCs. They add a fake £60-£70 debt collection fee and then send out scary letters with scary words including "bailiff" and "CCJ" in the, often successfu,l hope that the recipient is low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate and pay up.

DRP+ cannot "instruct" APCOA to initiate court proceedings. DRP+ are not a party to the contract you allegedly breached with APCOA. You already appear to be intimidated by their wording. Additionally, you have been advised that APCOA are benign when it comes to initiating a court claim. You worry that they may decide in a few years down the line that they may suffer for a drop in profits and decide that you will be one of the first victims to be sued by them. Can you not see how absurd that notion is. For the past dozen or more years APCOA have never initiated a court claim as they know it would eat into their profits having to splash out £35 each time with the risk of the losing the claim on many grounds.

APCOA do not rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. They rely solely on the fact that their victim is more likely than not one of those low-hanging fruit mentioned earlier and will just pay. Unless you have identified as the driver, they have no idea who that was. They are hoping you will either do so or throw the actual driver under the bus and give them ammunition to chase for their pound of flesh. They know that if you don't identify the driver, they have nowhere to go with this except to use a debt recovery company such as DRP+ to try and scare you into paying.

I could go on but my frustration at reading your comments bout paying a serial scammer like APCOA when all advice, based on experience, tells you not to do so and to ignore them at this stage, just doesn't make any sense and angers us because it just proves how gullible the victims of these serial, ex-clamper, parking scammers are.