Popla Website

BASFORDLAD

Ive just noticed this little gem:

The public has no rights of access to information from POPLA or the BPA under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). London Councils delivers and operates the POPLA service on behalf of the BPA. Information regarding delivery and operation of the service is held by London Councils on behalf of the BPA and is also not available under the FOIA or EIR.

taffy056

So a public appeal company (can't call it anything else) is not covered by an FOI request. Does Patas allow a FOI request ?

Half_way

I am not liable for the parking charge: e.g. that you had sold the vehicle before, or bought it after, the alleged improper parking. However, the fact that you do not think you should have to pay the parking charge or the fact that you had paid to park (even if, for example, the voucher was not clearly displayed) are not valid grounds of appeal.

So if you are apealing because you dont think that you should have to pay the parking charge then the apeal would be rejected??

if thats the case then wont all apeals be rejected on this basis, as the whole point in apealing an excessive sharge/[arking ticket is that you beleive that you shouldnt have to pay it

bazster

So the leaked document was accurate. Apologies to those with whom I disputed this.

That is truly gruesome. A letter will wing its way to the minister (copy my MP) over the w/e pointing out how they have stuck two fingers up to the government over this.

taffy056

Well it's clear then we advise everyone who parked in England and Wales to appeal to the parking company, when that fails to appeal to popla . This appeals system is blatantly unfair so let's try and bring them down by the sheer number of appeals. It should hopefully also bring down some parking companies.

The_Slithy_Tove

Half_way wrote: »

[/b][/u]
So if you are apealing because you dont think that you should have to pay the parking charge then the apeal would be rejected??

if thats the case then wont all apeals be rejected on this basis, as the whole point in apealing an excessive sharge/[arking ticket is that you beleive that you shouldnt have to pay it

That's more or less what I have asked them.

AlexisV

the fact that you had paid to park (even if, for example, the voucher was not clearly displayed) are not valid grounds of appeal

So even if you displayed your voucher on your dash upside down (not back to front), you couldn't appeal because the PPC goon didn't want to tilt his head?

ManxRed

And no losses suffered, clearly.

BASFORDLAD

I have just had an Ok coversation with a Steve Benton is some kind of senior Administrator

He has agreed to speak to the lead adjudicator about removing the word penalty and changing it to Parking ticket in regards the FAQ section

I also asked him whether the word liable for parking charge could be interpreted as legally liable, his was response was this would be looked at.

Half_way

It will be interesting to see if the likes of Apcoa try and use this in relation to airport roads ( ie a pasenger gettig out of a stationary vehicle at traffic lights etc)