Forum menu
MSE mentions some upcoming stuff that hopefully would address the lack of proper regulation
I wouldn't get your hopes up over that, they've been trying to sort a new code of practice out since 2019, the Conservatives made such a mess of it they were threatened with a high court injunction and gave up. They were basically going for the populist vote and reducing the PCN value down to what councils are allowed to charge despite the fact the councils were desperate to increase their PCN levels as they were uneconomic, all culture wars rubbish. Labour have now picked it up but are more than likely going to implement much of what is already in the joint code of practice which is pretty reasonable for the most part. They might try and remove the £70 debt collectors fee although that's what tripped the Conservatives up. Most likely the current PCN rate will be retained, although it should go up a lot as it was set in 2015 in a court ruling as a reasonable balance between deterrent and to cover the costs of enforcement. There's been a lot of inflation between 2015 and now as we all know.
The problem is there is nobody auditing the smaller companies in particular to ensure they are following the code of practice. That won't change even if there is a formal government approved code.
Totally outside the scope of regulating private companies that carry out enforcement on private land so totally irrelevant to this conversation.
Not really. They are allowed to operate because the private parking industry is not properly regulated.
And it's not properly regulated because the Private parking industry managed to block the legislation through lobbying. So we are still reliant on the BPA and IPC's own code rather than the Code that was on it's way to being made law. Before it got blocked by legal challenges from the private parking industry.
Other countries don't use ANPR enforcement like we do although it starting to grow.
ANPR isn't the issue. ANPR is common in a lot of places. Lack of trust is the issue. Parking your car is pretty much the same process anywhere in the world. However, the UK seems to be unique in the leeway it gives PPCs to operate. And in the way it uses the courts and legal action as it's means of enforcement. Again, more regulation would reduce the need to take people to court.
The UK isn't unique in how it deals with private parking compared to Europe, but it is unusual in the way it relies so heavily on the courts. Or rather, partially it relies on the courts but primarily it relies on the threat of civil action. Which obviously upsets people.
You have to ask why France, Germany, Norway, etc don't have this constant threats of civil action when it comes to parking contract disputes. I don't believe it's because British people fundamentally don't like paying for parking. Believe it or not, not wanting to pay parking fines is a human trait rather than a British trait.
The UK needs to move to administrative enforcement from it's current civil litigation business model. You can't have that without extensive oversight and controls in place. This is something the PPC industry is desperately fighting. I wonder why.
They are allowed to operate because the private parking industry is not properly regulated.
These rogue meet and greet companies are totally separate from the private parking enforcement industry, you try to conflate the two just undermines your arguments.
Private parking industry managed to block the legislation through lobbying.
That's not true, the Conservatives abandoned their efforts as the debt collection companies threatened a judicial review because the government failed to follow it's own consultations rules. Get your facts right.
However, the UK seems to be unique in the leeway it gives PPCs to operate
What are you talking about. To be able to access DVLA records the company must must be a registered member of one of the two trade bodies, their mode of operation is based on existing contract law and defined by the Beavis vs Parkingeye case. They also have to comply with POFA 2012 provisions. All of which is quite onerous.
And in the way it uses the courts and legal action as it's means of enforcement. Again, more regulation would reduce the need to take people to court.
I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion. How are you going to force people to pay a legitimate charge without ultimately relying on the courts for enforcement, are suggesting some other body with the force people to pay up, I'd rather rely on the courts personally.
You have to ask why France, Germany, Norway, etc don't have this constant threats of civil action when it comes to parking contract disputes.
I'd already explained that if you'd bothered to read my post properly. Paid parking in much of Europe is still reliant on expensive barrier infrastructure but that is changing rapidly as car park operator realise they don't have to spend hundreds of thousands on installing and maintaining expensive infrastructure when they can outsource the enforcement for free and keep all of the parking revenue.
This is something the PPC industry is desperately fighting.
No they are not, most of the bigger companies welcome more oversight and regulation, it will mean many of the multitude of smaller companies won't be able to operate. What they are fighting against is a reduction in the PCN value set by an independent court in 2015 which has already significantly devalued since it was et 10 years ago.
Ok..so first of all I'm taking legal advice, and should have done before posting the OP.
Now yes I've not had much patience for some of the responses, fair enough, I've had a terrible past few weeks (for unrelated reasons) so if you think im an arse based on this thread then fair enough.No hard feelings from me.
One thing I will point out however I've gone 50 years without ever being accused of a crime, never even had a speeding ticket, ever had a ccj, never being involved in a legal dispute. Up until last week my credit history was exceptional. I work in financial services. I am super aware of the importance of not ignoring letters from a court.
Many people think morrally i should have paid initially, that's entirely your prerogative. But legally I didn't need to.
Either way we have someone with my history who legally is in the right, vs a company who is part of an industry which has at best, not a great reputation for playing by the book.
Therefore I find it interesting that people are insinuating I've just 'ignored' numerous letters, rather than considering the possibily that, for whatever reason, I genuinely didn't receive them.
Anyways, there is a route to 'appeal' this, which I am exploring.
That's not true, the Conservatives abandoned their efforts as the debt collection companies threatened a judicial review because the government failed to follow it's own consultations rules. Get your facts right.
Feels a bit like you're desperately relying on some technicalities in order to be 'right'.
Who do you think mounted the legal challenge. You think the BPA was deperately crying 'No, no, we WANT this to go through!!'
They weren't.
Get your own facts straight and don't try to twist around in technicalities.
I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion. How are you going to force people to pay a legitimate charge without ultimately relying on the courts for enforcement, are suggesting some other body with the force people to pay up, I'd rather rely on the courts personally.
I suggest you look beyond this island. In most EU countries people pay parking fines without going to court (and without being threatened with court). This is done by regulating PPCs so that people aren't left wondering if they are paying a legitimate charge or if it is a scam of some sort.
I'd already explained that if you'd bothered to read my post properly. Paid parking in much of Europe is still reliant on expensive barrier infrastructure but that is changing rapidly as car park operator realise they don't have to spend hundreds of thousands on installing and maintaining expensive infrastructure when they can outsource the enforcement for free and keep all of the parking revenue.
No it's not. Get your facts right.
No they are not, most of the bigger companies welcome more oversight and regulation, it will mean many of the multitude of smaller companies won't be able to operate. What they are fighting against is a reduction in the PCN value set by an independent court in 2015 which has already significantly devalued since it was et 10 years ago.
Nope.
You really are living in some alternative reality.
The PPCs are quite happy with the mass civil litigation business model with limited government oversight because it is very profitable. Moving away from the civil litigation model and towards treating parking like an infrastructure issue with administrative enforcement would be better for society. No one likes getting threatened with court and it causes a lot of stress and a lot of frayed nerves, as this thread shows.
Let's not forget that since Brexit the UK has had a pressure for change removed. EU consumer law and proportionality principles severely limit what PPCs can do in the EU. As a result, most countries have far fairer systems with much greater oversight and all without additional pressure on the courts.
Let me be very clear. PPCs means of generating revenue being through the threat of legal action and actual legal action is NOT NORMAL. It's actually really weird, really bad for everyone, but also very profitable for the PPCs.
And as this thread also shows, people assume there is no alternative. There is.
this is even better than Jake Paul vs Anthony Joshua
I'm pretty sure that all the parking I've used in the last 3 years hasn't imoved from barrier to ANPR. I'm in Europe, and this
Other countries don't use ANPR enforcement like we do although it starting to grow.
is nonsense.
We get the parking enforcement we deserve.
I think it's perfectly possibly for this to be true and PPCs to be pretty shitty simultaneously. For exactly the same reasons.
As a collective we are a bunch of selfish shits. Look at the other stuff 'we' do around cars when we think we'll get away with it - the mindless tossing of litter out the window, the speeding when there's little chance if getting caught, the drink/drug driving. The collective 'we' act like total arseholes unless there is a very real chance of personal punishment. Given free reign in private car parks I am totally confident we'd treat them abysmally like the total arseholes we are.
The same 'we' run businesses like PPCs - they are not a different species. Can you really trust a collection of people who'll lob litter without thinking about it to run an ethical business that's not just about maximising their profit unless there is a bloody big stick ready to clobber them unless they behave reasonably?
My pet theory is that we're a culture grown from Christian foundations where doing the right thing was enforced by damnation rather than a humanistic approach of learning why living a good life is the right thing by default. But that's a debate for another day.
I think it's perfectly possibly for this to be true and PPCs to be pretty shitty simultaneously. For exactly the same reasons.
As a collective we are a bunch of selfish shits. Look at the other stuff 'we' do around cars when we think we'll get away with it - the mindless tossing of litter out the window, the speeding when there's little chance if getting caught, the drink/drug driving. Unless a collective 'we' act like total arseholes unless there is a very real chance of personal punishment. Given free reign in private car parks I am totally confident we'd treat it like the total arseholes we are.
Yeah, id agree with that. This thread also made me think of visiting car park funded trail centers, only to see 5k bikes being pulled out of 50k vans on the verge outside.
My experience is that private parking companies are quite thoroughly horrible. However, im sorry to say that the OP comes across very badly, since a fine was clearly due, but they’ve dodged it based in a technicality. Im sure a judge will be guided by legal due process and not feelings. But if I wouldn’t be a surprised if any more-human judge was unsympathetic to the insistance upon the loophole technicality (it’s wasnt me your honour, it was my partner who was parked there (in my car!)).
I don't think this is thread is about dodging a ticket on a technicality. The OP gave the information he was legally required to give and then heard nothing after that until he found out he had a judgement against him.
I think it's more a question of whether the PPCs have figured out a new and innovative way of screwing people over or was it an honest error that led to the court summons not arriving at the OP's address.
If it is a new PPC scam I'm not seeing what it is yet so I would assume it's an error somewhere. Interested in seeing the outcome.
Why are we comparing airport car parking with pcns ..... That's a very tenuous link at best.
I don't think this is thread is about dodging a ticket on a technicality.
A service was used and not paid for. This is unfair, even if the service provider is a shit. It also increases the service cost for the rest of us. Thus the shellacking. Ok sure, we've all done it - but it's a fair cop when you get busted.
A service was used and not paid for. This is unfair, even if the service provider is a shit. It also increases the service cost for the rest of us. Thus the shellacking. Ok sure, we've all done it - but it's a fair cop when you get busted.
If I'm reading the OP correctly, his main question was how come he got a court judgement against him without any correspondence.
Like I said, probably it's a mistake somewhere. But maybe the PPCs have figured out a new way to be shits.
I'd like to know the outcome.
I'm pretty sure that all the parking I've used in the last 3 years hasn't imoved from barrier to ANPR. I'm in Europe, and this
Other countries don't use ANPR enforcement like we do although it starting to grow.
is nonsense.
So SMART Parking. Peter Park, AvantPark and Apocoa to name a few aren't operating ANPR controlled car parks in Europe. Somebody better tell them quick.
Feels a bit like you're desperately relying on some technicalities in order to be 'right'.
Who do you think mounted the legal challenge.
Yeah the fear of a government losing a judicial review is a technicality, in your weird reality maybe, and it wasn't the BPA who threatened it, it was the Debt collectors. I think you referring to judicial review as a technicality is a tad desperate.
The PPCs are quite happy with the mass civil litigation business model with limited government oversight because it is very profitable.
No they aren't, it costs more to pursue a PCN through court than they get in revenue from the PCN, they aren't allowed to add costs onto the claim as it goes through the small claims process.
The whole private parking business is not as profitable as people think, the PCN payment ratio is a lot lower than people realise, if every unpaid PCN was taken through the small claims process the courts would collapse over night.
PPCs means of generating revenue being through the threat of legal action and actual legal action is NOT NORMAL.
It's very normal and how most businesses work, 2 parties enter in to a contract for to provide and receive a service, the recipient of the service pays the service provider. If they don't they get taken to court. Basic contract law and ruled on in 2015 for the parking industry.
But maybe the PPCs have figured out a new way to be shits.
And that makes no sense at all, they wanted tpbiker's money, there's no profit in getting him a CCJ.
Yeah the fear of a government losing a judicial review is a technicality, in your weird reality maybe, and it wasn't the BPA who threatened it, it was the Debt collectors. I think you referring to judicial review as a technicality is a tad desperate.
I guess LBC is lying as well then.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/9d3f29fa603e4b1cb86feef5590e2f6f-5HjcxMt_2/
Even the HoL are getting in on this slander:
The government “temporarily” withdrew the code on 7 June 2022 pending a review of the levels of private parking charges and ban on additional fees provisions in the code. This announcement followed two legal challenges launched by several parking firms against the government’s decision to introduce these changes.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/private-parking-code-of-practice-latest-developments/
Just to be clear, when i say technicality, it's more because I'm saying that the Code of Conduct was withdrawn because the Parking Companies launched legal challenges. You are trying to worm out of that simple assessment with lots of, 'Well, technically...'
The simple truth is there would be a Code of Conduct if it wasn't for the Parking Companies mounting a legal challenge. Does that sound like an industry that would really like to be regulated better?
It's very normal and how most businesses work, 2 parties enter in to a contract for to provide and receive a service, the recipient of the service pays the service provider. If they don't they get taken to court. Basic contract law and ruled on in 2015 for the parking industry.
Yes, but if you compare it to how PPCs work in Europe it's not normal at all.
That's because there is more trust. The trust isn't a cultural thing. It comes from confidence in the oversight and limitations in what the PPCs can and can't do.
As far as I know, the UK is alone in letting PPCs use the courts as a bulk recovery tool. It's also alone in using PPCs as a privately funded enforcement tool as opposed to a publicly accountable one.
It really doesn't have to be this way.
And that makes no sense at all, they wanted tpbiker's money, there's no profit in getting him a CCJ.
Yes, like I said, if it's a new PPC scam I'm not seeing what it is yet and why I suspect it's a mistake somewhere.
If I'm reading the OP correctly, his main question was how come he got a court judgement against him without any correspondence.
Exactly this. I wasn't driving, I was absolutely within my legal right to challenge this (regardless of whether you think it was the morally right thing to do.) They rejected the appeal. I heard nothing from them after that, no letter, nor email. No final demand for payment before court. I reveived no court summons, and nothing since. I'm not lying about this point regardless of the insinuation by some that I am.
If I'd been invited to court and the sherrif had found me liable then I'd have paid it that day and we wouldn't be debating this. Likewise if the sheriff had told me to disclose who was driving, again I would have and they'd have had to contact my girlfriend
The parking co has every right to take me to court. I should have every right to defend myself in court. I didn't get that chance. If you think that's fair then so be it, but I don't. Neither does my solicitor.
As an aside, I still don't even know the exact amount I owe, nor how to pay it even if I decided to, because nothing has been sent to me
And that makes no sense at all, they wanted tpbiker's money, there's no profit in getting him a CCJ.
Agreed. But isnt there even the faintest possibility that they knew fine well that scottish law means i wasn't liable if I could prove i wasn't driving, so having me not turn up in court was probably the only way they were going to get my money,. As you say, the ccj is irrelevant to them
That said, I still believe it's just been an admin cock up on someone's behalf. Because yes they want my cash, but they can't want it that much if I haven't yet been provided a means to pay what I owe.
Because yes they want my cash, but they can't want it that much if I haven't yet been provided a means to pay what I owe.
They probably have but it's gone the same way as all the other letters.
They probably have but it's gone the same way as all the other letters.
Well if that's the case they are sending them to the wrong address, which is hardly my fault. I may have missed one letter, I won't have missed 3 (min).
Regardless of how folks perceive I come across on here, my letter of appeal was factual, brief, and completely non offensive. I stated I wasn't driving, my legal position and that was it. I got chat gpt to write it as I recall.
But if I wouldn’t be a surprised if any more-human judge was unsympathetic to the insistance upon the loophole technicality (it’s wasnt me your honour, it was my partner who was parked there (in my car!)).
I get your sentiment, but the law is the law. It's quite clear.
And if I get a 'more human' judge who doesnt follow that then that's my tough titty. Regardless I surely deserved the chance to present my defense. And if I'd lost I surely deserve the chance to pay the fine that the judge sets in a timely fashion (thus avoiding a court order on my record)
You can say ' he was an idiot he should have paid up front', but are you honestly saying I don't deserve due process?
I don't think this is thread is about dodging a ticket on a technicality. The OP gave the information he was legally required to give and then heard nothing after that until he found out he had a judgement against him.
I think it's more a question of whether the PPCs have figured out a new and innovative way of screwing people over or was it an honest error that led to the court summons not arriving at the OP's address.
If it is a new PPC scam I'm not seeing what it is yet so I would assume it's an error somewhere. Interested in seeing the outcome.
It’s about thinking you’ve outwitted a parking firm for a ticket on a technicality that you know was due fair and square. It’s now come back to bite the OP on the arse but it’s everyone else’s fault. It’s a classic **** about and find out.
Feel free to spout your conspiratorial nonsense and being mister right though as it’s adding hugely to this becoming an STW epic.
It’s about thinking you’ve outwitted a parking firm for a ticket on a technicality that you know was due fair and square. It’s now come back to bite the OP on the arse but it’s everyone else’s fault. It’s a classic **** about and find out.
Feel free to spout your conspiratorial nonsense and being mister right though as it’s adding hugely to this becoming an STW epic.
Interesting, so you think that this is some sort of new tactic the PPCs have come up with in order to bite their victims in the arse if they manage to avoid a fine?
How do you see it working, exactly? Like the OP says, they still don't have the money and the inconvenience doesn't really help them much since there is still nowhere from him to send the money.
I think it's reasonable for you to have the suspicion that the PPCs have come up with a new way to intimidate customers, capitalism and lack of regulation does create a fertile environment for innovative ideas after all, but I'm still leaning towards there being a typo somewhere.
but I'm still leaning towards there being a typo somewhere.
Not related to this necessarily but it's not the 90's - I'd be amazed if the address data was ever typed in manually at all.
The owner data would have come from the DVLA and fed into the PPC system automatically.
Those systems will then have used the same data for all subsequent processes (such as the court application).
If the letter came through once then it should come through every time because the exact same data would have been used for all correspondence.
I don't think this is thread is about dodging a ticket on a technicality. The OP gave the information he was legally required to give and then heard nothing after that until he found out he had a judgement against him.
I think it's more a question of whether the PPCs have figured out a new and innovative way of screwing people over or was it an honest error that led to the court summons not arriving at the OP's address.
If it is a new PPC scam I'm not seeing what it is yet so I would assume it's an error somewhere. Interested in seeing the outcome.
It’s about thinking you’ve outwitted a parking firm for a ticket on a technicality that you know was due fair and square. It’s now come back to bite the OP on the arse but it’s everyone else’s fault. It’s a classic **** about and find out.
Feel free to spout your conspiratorial nonsense and being mister right though as it’s adding hugely to this becoming an STW epic.
It’s about thinking you’ve outwitted a parking firm for a ticket on a technicality that you know was due fair and square. It’s now come back to bite the OP on the arse but it’s everyone else’s fault. It’s a classic **** about and find out.
Feel free to spout your conspiratorial nonsense and being mister right though as it’s adding hugely to this becoming an STW epic.
Interesting, so you think that this is some sort of new tactic the PPCs have come up with in order to bite their victims in the arse if they manage to avoid a fine?
How do you see it working, exactly? Like the OP says, they still don't have the money and the inconvenience doesn't really help them much since there is still nowhere from him to send the money.
I think it's reasonable for you to have the suspicion that the PPCs have come up with a new way to intimidate customers, capitalism and lack of regulation does create a fertile environment for innovative ideas after all, but I'm still leaning towards there being a typo somewhere.
Nice try on the selective editing Mr Right.
It’s about thinking you’ve outwitted a parking firm for a ticket on a technicality
It's not really. It's about using their own appeals process to challenge a ticket I don't think was correctly issued, as I'm entirely within my rights to do. And then relying on due process to decide the outcome. If that outcome had found me liable I was more than prepared to pay.
My issue is i wasn't afforded due process.
Anyway, why don't we wait to see what happens with my court appeal, at which point you can either all point and laugh, or I can return and point out I was found not liable and was right to feel hard done by.
Not related to this necessarily but it's not the 90's - I'd be amazed if the address data was ever typed in manually at all.
The owner data would have come from the DVLA and fed into the PPC system automatically.
Those systems will then have used the same data for all subsequent processes (such as the court application).
If the letter came through once then it should come through every time because the exact same data would have been used for all correspondence.
Yeah, this is the strange bit. Perhaps I should have said 'mistake' rather than typo.
But this is what is interesting me. I'm not really interested in the moral aspect. I don't think there is really a moral aspect. Everyone (ie, both the PPC and the OP) just seems to be acting in the way you're supposed to act in a system where private parking is treated as a civil contract rather than administrative enforcement. Contract disputes are always going to be resolved either with litigation or the threat of litigation.
This is the natural result of neo-liberal laisez-faire capitalism being applied to parking. It's a feature, not a bug.
And, of course, in a pure neo-liberal system companies are always going to try to maximise profits so the incentive is always there to come up with innovative ways of making money. The business model of the PPCs is to get people to pay punitive fines, either with the threat of legal action or actual legal action. Therefore, when someone suddenly finds a judgement has gone against them without hearing anything about it, it's in all our interests that they find out what happened.
You can get the right result with the wrong methods. In this case, the right result would be that the OP paid the fine. However, how that happens matters.
If someone broke into my house and got caught and convicted that would be the right result. However, if it turns out they were convicted because a confession was extracted under duress then that would not be good for anyone. If it's acceptable for wrong'uns then the same methods are acceptable to be used on me, even if I haven't actually done anything wrong.
If there is something dodgy going with this judgement then finding out what it was is in all our interests.
Ultimately the solution to the PPC problem is to align with the rest of the EU in terms of how they operate and get away from this civil litigation based business model. It's really not doing anyone any good. But until then it is what it is and everyone just has to play their part, including the OP.
You can say ' he was an idiot he should have paid up front', but are you honestly saying I don't deserve due process?
I suspect that a lot of correspondents here, increasingly so as the thread gets longer, are skipping to the end to tell you why you're wrong without having read most of it. I'd suggest ignoring them, no good will ever come of pigeon chess.
This is thread of the year already.
The owner data would have come from the DVLA and fed into the PPC system automatically.
Which is how I understand it. Is it possible that when they sent me the initial letter they had the correct address, as I owned the car at the time. But by the time the court case came round I'd not had the car for 12 months so the dvla no longer registered it to my address?
That said, I find that unlikely given the court sends the summons, not the parking co (I think). And likewise, if the car is now registered elsewhere, it seems a coincidence that the case was held at my local sherrif court (unless the new owner also lives in fife)
If the summons comes from the court it should be fairly straightforward to obtain a copy of the letter, my solicitor is planning to do that next week. It should have my address on it. If it doesn't mystery solved.
Is it possible that when they sent me the initial letter they had the correct address, as I owned the car at the time. But by the time the court case came round I'd not had the car for 12 months so the dvla no longer registered it to my address?
Very doubtful as I would imagine the PPC would simply use the initial data as supplied for the date of the offence.
Plus the DVLA know who has owned every car for every day of it's "life" so could supply the correct registered keeper details for a specific date regardless of how long ago.
It’s about thinking you’ve outwitted a parking firm for a ticket on a technicality
It's not really. It's about using their own appeals process to challenge a ticket I don't think was correctly issued
It is. You're not challenging a ticket that was incorrectly issued, because you seem to [correctly] accept that the ticket was correctly issued but that you were not the driver. So it' a technicality.
The PPC can only request the keepers details once under KADOE so selling the car after the event won't matter. (fun fact 15% of vehicles on the DVLA database are not registered to an individual or company which is quite worrying)
The PPC will have used the DVLA supplied address for the initial PCN (which got to you), subsequent reminders, and then the debt collectors will have sent their threatening letters out. The next point your address should have been prior to court action, to make sure you're not dead and to confirm they do have the correct address for service of the claim. If they don't and purely rely on the DVLA address and there is no response from the defendant the court takes a dim view of the PPC being lazy.
There's 3 possibilities here:
1. Your postie is eating your mail.
2. Between the initial notice to Keeper and the reminder letter your address somehow got changed, unlikely to be honest unless someone sent them a data rectification notice to confirm the address change.
3. Someone at your end was intercepting the letters so you didn't see them.
It will be interesting to know what addresses were used. As well as the court docs you need to see what else was sent so you need to submit a subject access request to the data protection officer at the PPC requesting copies of all correspondence they sent you. This could be very helpful in court if they had indeed been sending letters to the wrong address.
Sharkbait is right, the PCN probably was correctly issued. You're just using the fact the keeper can't be held liable in Scotland (yet) and there is no legal requirement for you to name the driver. That does not absolve the driver of liability, it just means the PPC doesn't know who they are due to a loop hole in Scottish law.
Bruce if you want to wang on about the evils of neo liberalism head to back to one of the political threads although they all seemed to have died for some mysterious reason since Ernie vanished before Christmas.
Double post.
This could be very helpful in court if they had indeed been sending letters to the wrong address.
Any idea where the court will have got my address from? When I pitched up on Friday to ask what it was all about they asked me for my name and address to pull-up my record. Initially they couldnt find it.
Only after giving them the judgement ref (from my credit file) did they find my case. It was 5 min before the court shut so didn't think to ask for a copy of the letters at the time, or where they have been sent.
I've been advised to not contact the ppc at this point. I'll double check this point with the solicitor once I have the court letters
Bruce if you want to wang on about the evils of neo liberalism head to back to one of the political threads although they all seemed to have died for some mysterious reason since Ernie vanished before Christmas.
Ah, we're playing thread bouncer now are we. OK.
Stumpy, if you want to wang on about the evils of challenging parking tickets on technicalities head to one of the philosophy threads.
This thread is about the somewhat interesting topic of how you can have a judgement made against you and have no idea about it.
I'm not arguing they weren't served, I'm categorically saying I never saw them. Whether they went to the wrong address, or my dog ate them doent matter. Serving does not equate to recieved. hence one of the reasons the recall process exists
In Scottish civil actions, service is very close to the same thing as being received. If PROPERLY served it’s quite unlikely that you would be unaware of the original court case, the outcome nor the subsequent enforcement action - unless you moved house in the meantime? Knowing this sort of stuff, and how to get a sheriff to sit up and take notice is why I would want a solicitor actually used to litigation representing me. You can do it yourself, and a the outcome may be the same for you - but if the PPC is cutting corners (like trying to use English rules in Scotland) it would be nice to see them rebuked rather than just “win” your case. There’s lots of “advice” in this thread which is nonsense based on applying English law in a different jurisdiction - it would not surprise me if the PPC are similarly naive.
This could be very helpful in court if they had indeed been sending letters to the wrong address.
Any idea where the court will have got my address from? When I pitched up on Friday to ask what it was all about they asked me for my name and address to pull-up my record. Initially they couldnt find it.
Only after giving them the judgement ref (from my credit file) did they find my case. It was 5 min before the court shut so didn't think to ask for a copy of the letters at the time, or where they have been sent.
I've been advised to not contact the ppc at this point. I'll double check this point with the solicitor once I have the court letters
the court is provided your address by the pursuer (the PPC). It’s quite likely the court never sent you any original notice of the case - they only do this (for an extra fee) if the pursuer requests it. A firm pursuing lots of parking cases is likely to serve the docs themselves rather than pay the court to do it.
It’s quite likely the court never sent you any original notice of the case - they only do this (for an extra fee) if the pursuer requests it. A firm pursuing lots of parking cases is likely to serve the docs themselves rather than pay the court to do it.
Say what?! So what's stopping the ppc just saying they sent the letter but not posting it? They'd win by default every time?
Not related to this necessarily but it's not the 90's - I'd be amazed if the address data was ever typed in manually at all.
ah, you may be surprised at the inefficiencies of our courts and our lawyers then! It could well be typed or at least copy and pasted - where missing the first digit of an address is quite easy. However simple address errors of multiple docs would often be spotted as the incorrect recipient is likely to send back a letter that says on the outside that it contains court documents.
In theory it could even have been served by email - but the OP should have explicitly agreed to that. I wonder if PPC’s put that in the small print of their “appeal process” T&Cs.
As Poly said, the PPC, hitting the PPC with a formal SAR isn't really the same as engaging with them about the case, it's just exercising your rights under GDPR legislation, you will then have a complete set of all the documents they sent you. It's pretty standard practice in these cases over on the FTLA forum although it's more usual for people to not even receive the original notice to keeper as their V5 registration document isn't updated but that's obviously not the case here. Of course check with your solicitor.
Stumpy, if you want to wang on about the evils of challenging parking tickets on technicalities head to one of the philosophy threads.
Erm this is a thread about private parking tickets and their consequences, you're the one who's trying to turn it into something it's not with your tired old moaning about neo-liberalism, whatever that is.
Ianal etc
This article suggests that unlike in England (where service is presumed when posted there needs to be evidence of service.
"evidence of delivery must be attached to the confirmation of formal service lodged with the court for the presumption that the document has been received to apply, the Sheriff Appeal Court has ruled."
"The first attempt at service must be by “a next day postal service which records delivery”. "
Erm this is a thread about private parking tickets and their consequences, you're the one who's trying to turn it into something it's not with your tired old moaning about neo-liberalism, whatever that is.
No, it's about a court judgement resulting from private parking tickets.
I agree, questions about morality and politics belong on another thread but why don't you go back and have a look at just how keen many people, you included, were on telling the OP just how immoral he was.
I'm quite happy to stop discussing the morality and politics of it but that's going to depend on others, including you, isn't it?
you included, were on telling the OP just how immoral he was
You'll have to quote that back to me as having been back through the thread I can't see where I've questioned the morality of tpbikers actions. I've actually provided quite a bit of reasoned advice and background as to how these companies operate which I hope will contribute to tpbiker getting this sorted.
What have you added other than trying to derail the thread with rogue meet and greet companies, picking fights and trying to turn this into yet another repetitive, boring politics thread?
What have you added other than trying to derail the thread with rogue meet and greet companies, picking fights and trying to turn this into yet another repetitive, boring politics thread?
I think my main contribution is keeping the subject on topic by offering an alternative explanation to the assumption of many of this thread's contributors that the OP is a moral degenerate for not simply paying up. I did this by pointing out that the UK is pretty much alone in the way PPCs operate and the way they rely on civil courts to coerce people into paying. Because the UK goes the PPC and civil court route, picking up on technicalities is what is supposed to happen. It's a contract dispute, after all. It's the way an unregulated enforcement system is supposed to 'work'. Or at least, it's the way it's supposed to work if you believe the state shouldn't be regulating these things and the courts should be the ones to judge who is right and who is wrong on a case by case basis.
I'd really like that to be the end of this part of the discussion since people seem to be actually discussing the issue at hand now, ie, how did the OP receive no correspondence at any point in the process. It's an issue that could affect any one of us if it turns out people can take us to court and we don't know anything about it.
However, if you want to continue with the politics and moral discussion you go right ahead.