Discussion re methods - To ignore or not

[Nev Met]

It is OK to ignore letters from the parking company

 

NO IT [Mod edit] ISN'T!!!

[dx100uk]

why..........

 

dx

[raydetinu]

Oh dear, upset somebody! parking cowboy!

[Nev Met]

why..........

 

dx

 

There's a thread on Pepipoo in the Private Parking Forum called "Ignore or not - time to settle this" [it's in the stickies]

 

The arguments are laid out there.

 

One other point (and I can't remember if it's in that thread or another) it always seems that those who still advise 'Ignore' can never be found once the OP, having followed that advice, comes back, weeks, months or even years later waving a bundle of court papers.

[Nev Met]

This sums it up nicely, posted (on 30th May 2013) by one of the guys on Pepipoo (not me) but I don't think I could have put much better

 

 

"NEVER ignore. Always appeal. Every single claim that is going through at the moment is for people who ignore. appeal to POPLA and don't run the risk of a default judgment ruining your credit rating when you've moved house four years down the line.

 

"Ignore PE they don't do court" was once a well touted response. Times change, and the only sure way to protect yourself is to always appeal and win at POPLA.

 

Ignoring may also work against you in any hearing as you have not taken reasonable steps to resolve before court (I.e. putting the PPC to task in your strong appeal)".

 

(seem to have inadvertently hijacked this thread, do you want to break it off into a new thread?)

[steampowered]

There's a thread on Pepipoo in the Private Parking Forum called "Ignore or not - time to settle this" [it's in the stickies]

 

The arguments are laid out there.

 

One other point (and I can't remember if it's in that thread or another) it always seems that those who still advise 'Ignore' can never be found once the OP, having followed that advice, comes back, weeks, months or even years later waving a bundle of court papers.

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. There is a clear distinction between letters from the parking company and court papers from the court. Noone is questioning that people must respond to court papers. The need to file a Defence within a certain time limit and the consequences of failing to do so are clearly set out on the claim form. In this case, as in every other thread I have ever seen on CAG, the Op was correctly advised that he/she needs to defend to court proceedings.

 

Agreed it is worth making a POPLA appeal, even if for no reason other than the fact the parking company has to pay for it ... but there is no requirement to do so, and failure to do so does not prejudice your ability to defend court proceedings.

Edited July 2, 2013 by steampowered

[dx100uk]

there you go , that's better people can understand the reasons behind your earlier post now.

 

 

Every single claim that is going through at the moment is for people who ignore

 

though I also wonder how many have also gotten them when they didn't ignore & did go through popla??

 

and/or if that WILL make any diff to the outcome.

 

only time and statistics, IF all these 1000's of claims are truly in court will ACTUALLY tell.

 

dx

[Nev Met]

. but there is no requirement to do so, and failure to do so does not prejudice your ability to defend court proceedings.

 

Doesn't it?

 

So having ignored the PPCs appeal system and ignored the POPLA appeal system who has the moral high ground in the Judges mind, you or the PPC?

 

Don't you think that the Judge might be a little bit irritated by the fact that you couldn't be bothered to engage in the parking industry industry 'Pre-action protocol' (POPLA) before appearing in front of him?

 

What are you defending at Court, damages or a contractual sum - that's right, you don't know because you wasted two opportunities to nail that critical issue down before going to court and this is always the PPCs ace up the sleeve. (PE tried it on recently at POPLA, they flipped from an estimate of damages at the last minute to a contractual sum in an attempt to wrong foot the appellant but fortunately the assessor saw it for what it was.)

 

PoFA was a game changer and some people have failed to recognise it and consequently not moved with the times.

 

CEL are dishing out non-compliant PoFA NtKs like confetti at the moment, 'ignoring' does not impact on that one iota.

[steampowered]

Doesn't it?

 

So having ignored the PPCs appeal system and ignored the POPLA appeal system who has the moral high ground in the Judges mind, you or the PPC?

 

Don't you think that the Judge might be a little bit irritated by the fact that you couldn't be bothered to engage in the parking industry industry 'Pre-action protocol' (POPLA) before appearing in front of him?

 

What are you defending at Court, damages or a contractual sum - that's right, you don't know because you wasted two opportunities to nail that critical issue down before going to court and this is always the PPCs ace up the sleeve. (PE tried it on recently at POPLA, they flipped from an estimate of damages at the last minute to a contractual sum in an attempt to wrong foot the appellant but fortunately the assessor saw it for what it was.)

 

PoFA was a game changer and some people have failed to recognise it and consequently not moved with the times.

 

CEL are dishing out non-compliant PoFA NtKs like confetti at the moment, 'ignoring' does not impact on that one iota.

 

I don't agree. Pre-action letters are not normally included in trial bundles ... hence not normally available for judges to read in the first place.

 

Even if pre-action letters are put into the bundles, very unlikely the judge will be interested. Cases are judged according to the arguments set out in formal court documents only (Particulars of Claim, Defence, Reply, witness statements and skeleton arguments).

 

The CPR sets out the consequences of non-compliance with pre-action conduct and the only consequences are that it can be considered in relation to costs and general case management, it has no relevance to the substance of cases ... see paragraph 4.1 of the Practice Direction (http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct). In small claims track solicitor's costs are fixed and there are standard case management directions, so it is difficult to see what consequences there could ever be for failing to comply.

 

POPLA is not mentioned anywhere in the Civil Procedure Rules. There is certainly no requirement to use it. The relevant Practice Direction for these cases is Annex A.

 

Agreed that using POPLA is a good idea, not least because it costs the PPC money and may defeat the ticket before it ever gets to court ... but certainly not a requirement and not relevant to your ability to defend court proceedings. POPLA has the ability to cancel the ticket but apart from that its findings do not bind the courts.

 

Ignoring will not prevent people from receiving a court claim ... but responding won't either. I agree POPLA appeals are worth doing as costs the PPC money and may result in the ticket being cancelled ... but not mandatory and not prejudicial to the defence of court proceedings.

[Nev Met]

Pre-action protocol old bean, pre-action protocol and the impact is that by not taking it up you run the very real risk of coming across as having behaved unreasonable as a starter for ten. If you don't think that in any way affects your ability to defend a claim then you are deluding yourself.

 

Regular forum armchair lawyers are slowly learning the hard way that that the old way is the wrong way. Unfortunately that learning curve is at the cost of those poor suckers who were given the advice rather than those who gave it (such as the OP in this particular thread)

[slick132]

Please keep exchanges polite and civil - we have no wish to close a thread unless we have to.

 

The posts above have been moved to this new thread where ongoing debate can continue without hijacking Merv's thread which was here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?388923-Civil-enforcement-ltd-claim-form-received-help-**CEL-claim-Judgment-made**(15-Viewing)-nbsp

 

[dx100uk]

I don't think pre action protocol comes into it in the 'usual' sense here. or at all.?

 

pre action protocol is what the creditor must do before proceeding to court

 

not the other way around.

 

AFAIK there's nothing to say anywhere that a defendant 'must' do XYZ.

 

dx

[raydetinu]

surely it comes down to what is fair/reasonable as a transgression for overstaying implied contract terms!

Drivers are invited to park there and some may overstay by a few minutes or half an hour due to circumstances, therefore transgressing the terms.

The terms are stated but the charges are too high for the so called crime of trespass etc.

Has anybody got a record of what amount has been awarded in cases where they were defended in court?

[citizenB]

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#IDA5LA2

 

The courts do like to know that an attempt to resolve the situation without the need to go to court has been made.

 

If one party is seen to have been unreasonable then it can have an affect on costs.

[steampowered]

Pre-action protocol old bean, pre-action protocol and the impact is that by not taking it up you run the very real risk of coming across as having behaved unreasonable as a starter for ten. If you don't think that in any way affects your ability to defend a claim then you are deluding yourself.

 

Regular forum armchair lawyers are slowly learning the hard way that that the old way is the wrong way. Unfortunately that learning curve is at the cost of those poor suckers who were given the advice rather than those who gave it (such as the OP in this particular thread)

 

Hi,

 

I take your point. Without repeating my earlier post ... the key point I want to make is that pre-action correspondence does not usually go into the trial bundles. It is not normally be available to the judge in the first place ... much less any bearing on his decision on the legal merits.

 

Acting reasonably is technically relevant to the issue of costs ... but of limited importance in small claims track where costs are fixed barring fairly exceptional circumstances.

Edited July 3, 2013 by steampowered

[Surfer01]

Doesn't it?

 

So having ignored the PPCs appeal system and ignored the POPLA appeal system who has the moral high ground in the Judges mind, you or the PPC?

 

Don't you think that the Judge might be a little bit irritated by the fact that you couldn't be bothered to engage in the parking industry industry 'Pre-action protocol' (POPLA) before appearing in front of him?

 

What are you defending at Court, damages or a contractual sum - that's right, you don't know because you wasted two opportunities to nail that critical issue down before going to court and this is always the PPCs ace up the sleeve. (PE tried it on recently at POPLA, they flipped from an estimate of damages at the last minute to a contractual sum in an attempt to wrong foot the appellant but fortunately the assessor saw it for what it was.)

 

PoFA was a game changer and some people have failed to recognise it and consequently not moved with the times.

 

CEL are dishing out non-compliant PoFA NtKs like confetti at the moment, 'ignoring' does not impact on that one iota.

 

Since when has POPLA become a legal recognised entity?

[Nev Met]

I've been a member of CAG for a while now but rarely visit or post on here. The reason that I popped my head back in a couple of days ago is because I'm trying to harvest CEL (post PoFA) cases because it has been identified that they are habitually serving their 'Notice to Keeper' outside the 14 days prescribed by PoFA.

 

Whilst I was here I also posted (as you do) on a couple of other threads (ANPR Ltd and G24) - it appears that all of my posts have been viewed with suspicion and mistrust and I have now been accused of being a PPC operative (the poster deciding to play the man not the ball - always a good indicator that you're beyond your ability to make a reasoned and logical response).

 

Anyway, my recent experience over the last couple of days is that the responses to my posts is like Pepipoo was about a year to six months ago, before the vast majority of regular posters finally recognised and appreciated the implications of PoFA and POPLA.

 

Moving on - from 1st Oct 2012 until some point around April 2013 it was DVLA policy that in England and Wales that 'reasonable cause' for registered keeper data release was for PoFA purposes only. Therefore (in theory) if the application for or the release of RK data meant it was simply impossible for a PPC to serve a Notice to Keeper within 14 days then the data should not have been released . What we have found is that not only was the data (unlawfully?) released late by the DVLA but there is a suggestion that (certainly in one case) that if the fault was the DVLA's then the DVLA apparently said it was OK to continue chasing the RK under PoFA.

 

Since April(ish), the DVLA, finally resigned to the fact that it had no control over data releases (with a mind to the statutory time constraints imposed by PoFA) shafted the consumers BIG style - although you are probably not even aware because the DVLA don't really want the press to get hold of it.

 

From April(ish) the DVLA made a policy decision that they wouldn't even pretend to attempt to control who got what data and when - and they have now created a two tier system of private parking enforcement in England and Wales (by default) and it works like this.

 

If the PPC gets the data in time to pursue the parking charge under Sch 4 PoFA then that is what they would expect the PPC to do (note expect, there's no requirement).

 

If the PPC gets the data 'out of time' for PoFA purposes then the PPC can still chase the driver under the 'old' pre-PoFA arrangements.

 

It will come as no surprise you to learn that this is being taken advantage of by PPCs (hence my search for CEL victims for volume complaints) who are applying for or being supplied with RK data 'late' but are still threatening RK liability when they are legally barred from doing so.

 

So, is ignore 'still the best option' - well it's certainly an option but is it the 'best'.

 

Clearly I hold the view that it isn't, there is skullduggery going on with the apparent complicity of the DVLA and ignoring not only fails miserably to challenge the system (and get a quick and easy 'result') but leaves the victim with a noose round their neck for the next six years having thrown away a winning hand for no gain - utter madness.

 

The three cases that I posted on (CEL, ANPR and G24) could all have been easily dealt with topped off with a nice little complaint against the DVLA. Now, the three victims have been scared off because some posters on here decided to attack my credibility and follow that up with poor advice that quite simply should have died out by now.

 

One final point, Notices that are issued under PoFA are not 'invoices'.

 

POFA calls them either a 'Notice to Driver' (NTD) or a 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK). In both cases the content of the NTD/NTK is prescribed by the POFA.

 

What is also quite worrying on here is the apparent failure or reluctance to recognise and understand the difference between a genuine pre-estimate of damages (AOS CoP B19.5) and a contractual sum (AOS CoP B19.6). This is one of the most difficult issues to try and pin down when dealing with a parking charge. It's another reason why you should challenge the charge with the operator first and then if need be with POPLA so that you can then nail down what they say the parking charge represents which makes it easier to deal with.

[steampowered]

Hi Nev,

 

Personally I think your contributions are valuable. I think the reason your posts have been viewed with suspicion is because some of them are very insulting. For example, you called me a 'regular forum armchair lawyer', and this is not the only example. If you think someone is wrong, it is best is to simply explain the reasons why they are wrong in a polite and factual manner. Once you insult people they normally stop taking you seriously.

 

Regarding the substance of your post - the crux of your argument seems to be that people can avoid being sued by explain to the DVLA. I am struggling to follow your argument here. Once people start receiving registered keeper letters, the parking company already has their details. Can you kindly explain what you think a complaint to the DVLA will achieve?

 

On the 'six year noose' point - CCJs do not stay on credit files if paid within 30 days.

Edited July 4, 2013 by steampowered

[Nev Met]

I originally only came on here to try and find some CEL victims, unfortunately it hasn't happened. Take care.

[Surfer01]

Nev Met still does not state why he thinks POPLA have some sort of legal status? Your posts do come across as if you are supporting the PPC and working for them.

[instrumentsofjoy]

Nev Met still does not state why he thinks POPLA have some sort of legal status? Your posts do come across as if you are supporting the PPC and working for them.

 

I cannot and do not speak for Nev Metson doughty campaigner against Private Parking that he is.

 

But if you appeal to POPLA - and a win gets easier and easier - then as I understand it, that is the end of the matter and the PPC cannot legally pursue matters.

 

So in that sense it might be considered legal.

 

Not a statutory body as I understand it.

[Tony P]

Your posts do come across as if you are supporting the PPC and working for them.

 

A quick look into his past background and recent activities should quickly dispel that impression.

[instrumentsofjoy]

+1

[tomtubby]

In the past few weeks I have also read all of the posts from Nev Met and I fully support what he has to say and anyone believing that he supports private parking companies is barking mad.

 

I do not normally post on the parking section as my expertise lay in the Bailiff and High Court Section of the forum. However, I have taken a huge interest in the matter of PPC's since helping my sister with a complaint regarding Civil Enforcement Ltd. I posted a brief outline of the complaint on another thread. A copy is below:

 

I normally post on the bailiff section but I have been helping a relative ( my sister) who received a ticket from Civil Enforcement Ltd. Strangely this was for parking on land that is owned by Aldi . She was not the driver at the time.

 

The "offence" was on 31st December 2012 and the notice dated 16th January 2013 ( which was clearly outside the 14 days as provided by PoFA

 

Worse still....the initial demand from CEL was not for £100 but was for £150 and reduced to £75 etc etc.

 

I helped her with an "appeal" which was sent to CEL. Nothing further was heard and she "assumed" that her appeal had been accepted. WRONG

 

10 days ago she received a "draft" claim form stating a figure of £425 and advising that unless she paid £150 the claim would be sent to the court TODAY (26th June).

 

On the initial demand from CEL and the letter with the "draft" claim Form there is NO TELEPHONE NUMBER and neither is there an EMAIL ADDRESS. The only way of finding out whether or not they received her letter of appeal is to write to the company. That has been done and so far....no response.

 

I am very interested to hear that parking eye normally manage the car parks owned by Aldi. I will be contacting them this morning.

 

A letter of complaint is also on its way to DVLA and to the BPA.

 

This is a damned disgrace and I will certainly be posting on the Lidl Facebook page as well.

Edited July 4, 2013 by tomtubby