(sorry for poor grammar/spelling above as on my tablet as cant edit the post!)

Let me set the record straight here please and i would appreciate if this is left up. 1. I know the Parking industry inside out. I have seen all sides of it, i have been involved in for many many years 2. The business is not dodgy and I am not promoting it here At. The is now need. Considering the business has this week just done over 300 appeals. A large number of court claim defences and other work there is no need to promote it on here in any way. When you consider the amount of work we get , promoting stuff on here is not worth the time and effort for the return you would get. We are very successful at what we do and we are proud of what we do 3. Not only are we a business but people who work with us are members of the BMPA (dont confuse that with the BPA). One is going to be a trustee of the BMPA (it is going to get charity status) 4. I also do a lot of Rep work in the county court giving up valuable time to help people defend themselves against parking companies. 5. People can think what they like about the new handling of IPC cases and you can have your views as is your right. However it is going to work. This new method is going to be propagated outside of CAG. I wont advise anyone on this forum to use that method as I respect the admin teams wishes on this matter. 6 I would really be interested in your new strategy of dealing with IPC cases.

Let us get one thing straight I do have a clue. I know POFA inside out. I know the Parking Industry inside out.

GPEOL does not work with IPC members as they are all about consideration, so GPEOL is not a factor., the IPC appeals is not transparent. Do not bother advising people to use gpeol for IPC members where they have changed their signs. It wont wash.

I mis-read that.

Thats correct the one on the home page. You can email us if you wish to check

Well thats right and ranger services are pretty awful

Yes the one that is advertised on there..

I can understand your point though Dragonfly1967. However this is going to succeed. We are getting a network of addresses all over the UK to spread the load as needed.

No thats not correct: Here: Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if— (a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and (b)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate. (3)For the purposes of the condition in sub-paragraph (2)(b), the vehicle is to be presumed not to be a stolen vehicle at the material time, unless the contrary is proved. (4)The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given. (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified). (6)Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not to be read as permitting double recovery). (7)The right under this paragraph is subject to paragraph 13 (which provides for the right not to apply in certain circumstances in the case of a hire vehicle). Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 5(1)The first condition is that the creditor— (a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but (b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver

As you changed your reply i shall include all of it: ---End Quote--- Oh, I've grasped it ok, someone has thought up a way they 'think' they can fool the system and make lots of money. Are you saying there is no collection agencies in NI that can be requested to take on a case for another company in England ? *************** No they are not stupid thats why the likes of UKCPS/UKPC cancel tickets for all the ones we appeal. I can tell you on average we do over 40 appeals. Collection agencies are powerless.

Sorry that's not actually right. Keeper liability does not apply where they know the name and address of the driver. One of the requirements of schedule 4 for keeper liability is they dont have a current serviceable address and a name for the driver.

Well there you go again you are actually wrong there Keeper liability under POFA schedule 4 only applies if certain conditions have been satisfied. One of those conditions for keeper liability to apply is for the PPC to NOT have a name and a serviceable address for the driver. However since they now have a name for the driver and a serviceable address for the driver then then is no keeper liability.

This is normal for CP Plus who are really ranger services. Their systems often dont put the charge on hold and customers continue to receive reminder letters When you do the POPLA appeal in order to beat CP Plus you should try and get hold of a loss statement for the site in question (if its paid for parking) then you must rebut the evidence pack they sound through to POPLA. It much better if you can do this in advance, but not essential.

No TPS issue very few court proceedings but they do use premier solicitors sending so called letters before claim. These are however mostly bluff.