Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 5:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 5:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 9:29 AM.
Page 147
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Feb 18, 1:16 PM
    • 16,652 Posts
    • 26,044 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    In response to the appellant's points the operator states, 'Although I understand the point the appellant is making, unfortunately, I am unable to take the mitigating circumstances into account'. I do not consider the appellant has provided mitigating circumstances to be taken into account. She has clearly stated the ticket was visible, and the warden has taken photos from an angle. This is not mitigation.
    Ha ha! Gemini clearly don't understand what 'mitigation' means, only that it's a word/excuse to turn down an appeal. 'Mitigation, innit'!

    Dunces' corner for Gemini on this one!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 13th Feb 18, 12:53 PM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    Operator: Euro Car Parks
    Decision: Successful on the grounds ECP did not wish to contest the appeal.
    Original thread located here.

    Presumably 21 days wasn't enough to read my somewhat lengthy appeal document
    Last edited by MikeHammer; 13-02-2018 at 2:58 PM.
    • Wildwood17
    • By Wildwood17 13th Feb 18, 8:16 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Wildwood17
    Popla appeal successful
    I won! I'm so happy because it was starting to stress me out. THANKYOU everyone who gave advise you all do a marvelous job.

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor NameAlexandra Wilcock
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The driver abused patron parking.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. He says the operator has not demonstrated that the individual it is pursuing is the driver. The appellant advises that the signage within the car park is not prominent, clear or legible for the parking spaces. Also, he states that there is insufficient notice of sum. He states that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the operator has the appropriate authorisation to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) on the site in question.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the PoFA 2012. As the driver of the vehicle was unknown on the date of the alleged contravention, a Notice to Keeper was issued. To transfer the liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle, the Notice to Keeper must follow the requirements of PoFA 2012. PoFA 2012, 9(4) the notice must be given by- (a) Handling it to keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) Sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. (5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking end. (6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working days” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales”. The operator has provided a copy of PCN. From this I can see that the date of the contravention was the Sunday 29 October 2017. Therefore, under PoFA 2012 the 14 day period starts from Monday 30 October 2017, as such, the PCN would have needed to be received by Monday 13 November 2017. I can see from the evidence provided the PCN was issued on Monday 8 January 2018. From this, I am satisfied that the PCN was issued eight weeks after the PCN should have been received by the appellant. As such, I conclude that the PCN has not followed the strict guidelines of PoFA 2012 meaning that the liability has not been successfully transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. As such, the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal on PoFA 2012, I will not take these into account.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Feb 18, 9:13 PM
    • 16,652 Posts
    • 26,044 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Therefore, under PoFA 2012 the 14 day period starts from Monday 30 October 2017, as such, the PCN would have needed to be received by Monday 13 November 2017. I can see from the evidence provided the PCN was issued on Monday 8 January 2018. From this, I am satisfied that the PCN was issued eight weeks after the PCN should have been received by the appellant. As such, I conclude that the PCN has not followed the strict guidelines of PoFA 2012 meaning that the liability has not been successfully transferred from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. As such, the PCN was issued incorrectly.
    8 weeks late, and yet they still pursue Keeper Liability - are they stupid, or just still don't understand this stuff yet - 5+ years on?

    Answers on a postcard, please!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • mae
    • By mae 15th Feb 18, 12:01 PM
    • 1,458 Posts
    • 821 Thanks
    mae
    Sorry posted in wrong place
    Last edited by mae; 15-02-2018 at 12:25 PM.
    • Molts
    • By Molts 16th Feb 18, 12:47 PM
    • 99 Posts
    • 217 Thanks
    Molts
    ECP Evidence Pack Fail
    On behalf of a colleague at Shorne Woods Country Park, Gravesend.

    They took it to the bitter end but their evidence pack was woeful. I tore it apart but appeal won based on no authority to issue PCN's. The "authorisation instruction" they supplied as evidence was beyond a joke.

    Won with standard template appeal tailored to the circumstances and a strongly worded evidence pack rebuttal.

    Verification Code
    2413517026

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor NameSophie Taylor
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to “No valid pay and display/permit was purchased”.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has provided a document listing the grounds of their appeal. In the document, the appellant states that: • The operator has not issued the Notice to Keeper correctly according to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and therefore they cannot be held liable as the keeper. • The operator has not provided evidence of its authority to issue PCNs on the land. • The signs fail to warn drivers what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data will be used for. • The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the amount of the PCN. • The operator has not justified any loss. • The evidence is open to doctoring.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has queried the operator’s authority to manage the land in question. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided evidence of an authorisation instruction. However, reviewing this document I am not satisfied it is sufficient to show the operator has authority to issue PCNs as it does not give me the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. As I cannot ascertain that the operator has authority to issue PCNs on the land, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Feb 18, 2:59 PM
    • 54,026 Posts
    • 67,685 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Well done Molts. Knew you could do it!

    Going back to post #2923 from Wildwood17, this is wrong isn't it?

    The operator has provided a copy of PCN. From this I can see that the date of the contravention was the Sunday 29 October 2017. Therefore, under PoFA 2012 the 14 day period starts from Monday 30 October 2017, as such, the PCN would have needed to be received by Monday 13 November 2017.
    Unless I've added it up wrong, POPLA should have said that the PCN would have needed to have been received by Sunday 12 November. They are right to start counting from the day after, but then they haven't counted that day, the Monday, as day one.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Molts
    • By Molts 16th Feb 18, 3:30 PM
    • 99 Posts
    • 217 Thanks
    Molts
    Unless I've added it up wrong, POPLA should have said that the PCN would have needed to have been received by Sunday 12 November. They are right to start counting from the day after, but then they haven't counted that day, the Monday, as day one.
    Haha yeah this one always wrecks my head but I agree, day one should be the Monday. Luckily in this case the PCN was issued well outside the relevant period.

    I can only assume the POPLA assessor is getting confused with dates of service:

    (6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so !!!8220;given!!!8221; for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose !!!8220;working days!!!8221; means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales!!!8221;.
    Easily done by a lay person but POPLA assessors should be getting it right.
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 16th Feb 18, 3:31 PM
    • 655 Posts
    • 1,714 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Your adding up is correct C-M. Any 14 day period beginning on a Monday must end on a Sunday.

    It's not the first time POPLA have made this elementary mistake - thankfully in this case there was no harm done because the PCN was issued many weeks after the end of the relevant period.

    Perhaps we should all club together and buy POPLA a set of Fisher Price counting beads.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th Feb 18, 3:52 PM
    • 6,942 Posts
    • 9,038 Thanks
    beamerguy

    Perhaps we should all club together and buy POPLA a set of Fisher Price counting beads.
    Originally posted by Edna Basher
    Good idea but my guess is that even counting beads
    would be too complicated for them
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 19th Feb 18, 9:38 AM
    • 28 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    Success - Premier Park, Planet Ice Peterborough
    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Vikki Worrall
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator's case is that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant had failed to pay for the duration of stay.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, I have summarised them as follows:- !!!8226; There is inadequate and unclear signage at the entrance to and around the site. The appellant states that the driver did not have an opportunity to consider the contract or the amount of charge. In addition, the charge is disproportionate. Furthermore, the car park is unlit and therefore the signage is difficult to read at night. He also raised issues relating to the font size. !!!8226; The Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore no keeper liability has been established. !!!8226; The operator has not shown that the person they are pursuing was the driver at the time the PCN was issued. !!!8226; The operator does not have the required landowner authority to issue and pursue PCN!!!8217;s at the site. The appellant has provided a 12 page document, including photographs the appellant had taken, expanding on these grounds. And raised additional issues in his comments on the operator's case file.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, however, my report will focus solely on signage at night, as this supersedes all other aspects. The appellant has raised concerns over the signage at the site with particular reference to the car park or the signage not being illuminated, and therefore, the signage could not be read in the hours of darkness. The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) which captured the appellant entering the site at 19:44 and exiting at 21:19. From the ANPR evidence, it is clearly dark when the appellant arrived at the site. Therefore, the operator would need to provide evidence that the signs on site would be illuminated. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states that !!!8220;Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including the hours of darkness if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or using the lighting for the parking area.!!!8221; It is noted that the operator has advised the signage at the site are readable and understandable at all times, and that a vehicle!!!8217;s headlights would light up the signage, the payment machines and also the car park. While I note that the operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site and the location of these and the payment machines, most of these are taken during the hours of daylight. Of the photographs taken at night, these are taken of the two payment machines only and the entrance of Planet Ice itself. Therefore, the photographic evidence provided by the operator does not sufficiently confirm that there would have adequate lighting on the signage at the site itself. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. From the photographic evidence I am unable to determine if, when the appellant entered the site that he would have been aware of the terms and conditions associated with the car park due to the signage not being illuminated. Therefore I do not consider that this PCN has been issued correctly. The appellant has raised other grounds, however, as I have allowed this appeal, I have not considered them further.

    -------
    Despite my best efforts to derail the standard appeal with overly-long evidence pack comments, i got a win based on the operator failing to prove there was adequate lighting on the signage.
    Thanks to everyone who contributed or offered opinions. I am very very grateful!!

    Original thread: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5756275
    Last edited by AceOfBass; 19-02-2018 at 10:59 AM. Reason: Clarification on the reason for success
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 19th Feb 18, 10:27 AM
    • 891 Posts
    • 671 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    Almost....You got a win on the PPC scum failing to send enough pictures for the POPLA assessor to make a judgement on the adequacy of the lighting of the signage. She didn't actually say 'the lighting is inadequate'


    So the next person along at this site might not succeed on this point if the PPC scum sent more/enough photos....
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Feb 18, 10:33 AM
    • 16,652 Posts
    • 26,044 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Premier Park have had a pretty good run with POPLA of late, glad to see them fail on this. I was starting to think they might have some favoured standing!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 19th Feb 18, 10:40 AM
    • 6,942 Posts
    • 9,038 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Premier Park have had a pretty good run with POPLA of late, glad to see them fail on this. I was starting to think they might have some favoured standing!
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    You are right, I think most now consider POPLA as a
    "flip a coin" operation most likely reflecting back to the
    BPA esteemed elite membership of scammers
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • AceOfBass
    • By AceOfBass 19th Feb 18, 11:00 AM
    • 28 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    AceOfBass
    Almost....You got a win on the PPC scum failing to send enough pictures for the POPLA assessor to make a judgement on the adequacy of the lighting of the signage. She didn't actually say 'the lighting is inadequate'


    So the next person along at this site might not succeed on this point if the PPC scum sent more/enough photos....
    Originally posted by Computersaysno
    I've edited the post to clarify it was the operator's failure to prove adequate lighting that was the specific reason for the win.
    • chewbigred
    • By chewbigred 19th Feb 18, 3:56 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    chewbigred
    Success - Euro Car Parks, The Broadway Bedford
    Decision: Successful
    Assessor Name: Louise Dack

    Assessor summary of operator case:
    On 28 October 2017, vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist parking for longer than the period of time paid for.

    Assessor summary of your case:
    The appellant states that no reasonable grace period has been allowed, the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site and that the charge is a penalty and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The appellant says that the charge received is prohibited and unfair and that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision:
    When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’24 Hour pay and display/pay by phone car park…Charges apply at all times…Pay at pay and display machine…Please enter full vehicle registration via the key pad…This car park is controlled, failure to comply with the following will result in the issue of a £100 Parking Charge Notice if paid within 14 days.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the period of time paid for. I note that the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal. Please note that my assessment will focus solely on the operator having authority from the landowner as this will supersede the other grounds. The appellant has disputed the operator having authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Within the operator’s case file they have provided a copy of written authorisation from the landowner. Having reviewed this I cannot be satisfied that this meets the requirements as laid out with Section 7 of the British Parking Associations Code of Practice and as this does not contain a start and end date to the contract. As such, I am unable to conclude that the operator had a valid contract in place at the time of the contravention. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

    ---------------------------
    Won using standard templates and advice from this forum. Thanks to everyone who contributes and posts.
    • _CraigS
    • By _CraigS 19th Feb 18, 4:36 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    _CraigS
    Unsuccessful - Premier Park, Exeter Road, Braunton
    I've complained to POPLA about procedural failings on this as the decision is based on the fact that a payment wasn't received when the operator has provided evidence that it was (they are claiming an overstay). The assessor also failed to address the key points of my case (these were made clear in a summary at the start of the document), particularly that the car park was unlit so signs were impossible to read at night and she didn't address the rebuttal points, specifically that the contract provided as evidence of landowner authority had expired.

    Decision Unsuccessful
    Assessor Name Georgina Riley

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator's case is that the appellan's vehicle parked at the George, Exeter Road where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking session expired or unpaid.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant's case is that he is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper was not delivered in compliance with the requirement s of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states that the operator has not correctly transferred liability for the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that there is no evidence that the operator has the authority of the landowner. The appellant states that the operator is improperly using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems and that the operator has failed to provide any proof that oy adherence and compliance checks have been completed. The appellant has provided a letter outlining his appeal.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant's vehicle entering the site at 19:26 and departing at 21:55 on 14 October 2017. From this, I am satisfied that the vehicle was at the site at two hours 29 minutes. The operator has provided a system search demonstrating that a payment was not received for parking on the day. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site showing the terms and conditions. They state, 'Parking tariff apply at all times'; and 'Camera enforcement in operation. If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100'. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards. POPLA's main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions The appellant states that he is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the notice to keeper was not delivered in compliance with the requirement s of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states that the operator has not correctly transferred liability for the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. PoFA 2012 relies on the operator providing certain information within strict timescales to the registered keeper within its Notice to Keeper. In order to establish that the correct processes have been followed, I will need to examine the Notice to Keeper, which was given to the registered keeper of the vehicle. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has shown strict compliance with PoFA 2012 and as such, liability has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that there is no evidence that the operator has the authority of the landowner. Section 7.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states, 'f the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken. In addition, section 7.3 of the BPA's Code of Practice sets out the conditions that the written authority must include'. The operator has provided a redacted copy of the contract between itself and the landowner. From this I am satisfied that the operator has the authority fo the landowner to manage parking at the site. The appellant states that the operator is improperly using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems and that the operator has failed to provide any proof that any adherence and compliance checks have been completed. The appellant has provided a letter outlining his appeal. The signage at the site states, 'Camera enforcement in operation'; and 'Any images captured are used for parking enforcement purposes only'. This would sufficiently highlight to motorists that cameras are in operation at the site and that a PCN will be issued for not complying with the terms and conditions of the site. Section 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, ';You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents';. From this, I am satisfied that the ANPR Systems at the site are maintained and audited to the standard expected and overseen by the BPA. When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. By entering into the car park and remaining in this area, the motorist is agreeing to the terms and conditions in place and agreeing to pay the PCN if they do not comply with them. The terms and conditions of the site states that all parking periods must be paid for. By failing to make payment for parking the motorist has not complied with the terms and conditions of the site. In conclusion, from the evidence provided I can only determine that the motorist has not complied with the terms and conditions by failing to make payment. Therefore, I determine that the operator issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.
    Last edited by _CraigS; 19-02-2018 at 4:59 PM. Reason: Clarity
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Feb 18, 5:35 PM
    • 16,652 Posts
    • 26,044 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I've complained to POPLA about procedural failings on this as the decision is based on the fact that a payment wasn't received when the operator has provided evidence that it was (they are claiming an overstay).
    Let us know how this proceeds. Well done on taking this forward on your own with no requests for input from the forum.

    I suspect the assessor pressed the wrong button for the template response - but if they can't work that one out, they deserve all the flak they get in return, and they need to sort out their apparent self-inflicted mess!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 19th Feb 18, 5:39 PM
    • 6,942 Posts
    • 9,038 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Is it not Georgina Riley who seems to be clueless
    and making POPLA look stupid ???
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Feb 18, 5:46 PM
    • 16,652 Posts
    • 26,044 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Decision: Successful
    ---------------------------
    Won using standard templates and advice from this forum. Thanks to everyone who contributes and posts.
    Originally posted by chewbigred
    Brilliant, another self-help DIY-er using the powerful forum stickies, when so many demand help on whether to send a letter or an email, whether to lick or sellotape the envelope, first or second class ............

    So refreshing, and well done.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

271Posts Today

2,459Users online

Martin's Twitter