POPLA- Result now in

Aaron_Aadvark

Shona_Watson,_POPLA_Assessor wrote: »

I must find as a fact that, at the material time, a valid disabled badge was required to be displayed on the vehicle but was not visible. This was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

"I must find" = "I am following the BPA script"

Shona_Watson,_POPLA_Assessor wrote: »

I must find as a fact that, at the material time, a valid disabled badge was required to be displayed on the vehicle but was not visible. This was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

A requirement comes from legislation. A term or condition comes from a contract.

Ms Watson does not seem to know the difference between regulation and contract.

Taiko

When they said the assessors were graduates, I didn't realise they meant in David Beckham studies..

Stroma

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

I must find as a fact that, at the material time, a valid disabled badge was required to be displayed on the vehicle but was not visible. This was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

And this I must find is a breach of the Equality Act 2010, so as that is based on statute law not some poxy term in a free car that disabled badges do not apply, I find it amazing that Popla thinks its above the law. This and other cases like it must be pressed for a breach.

Glacier_2

There is a very real danger that POPLA will gain legal standing. All it will take is for a few PPCs to claim it is a legitimate tribunal to a few tame judges and bang we are stuck with it. The same happened with the BPA, they are nothing but a trade body but now have universal acceptance as a legal body in most county courts. The DVLA gives it standing for gawds sake.

I fully expect the PPCs to run to court with their POPLA rulings in hand so they can ram home the kangaroo courts rulings.

Sirdan

Utter drivel by POPLA , what they have failed to address is the intention of the contractual term for parking in the disabled space without displaying said "Blue Badge" ...is the £100 charge a genuine offer that any sane person would accept or is it in place to deter such action ..WE all know the answer ...clearly POPLA are either to dim or too corrupt to reason that point through to a logical conclusion..

perhaps POPLA assessors should all be forced to take note of the OFT guidance on unfair terms which says this : -

"The Regulations are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism. If a term has the effect of an unfair penalty, it will be regarded as such, and not as a 'core term'.
Therefore a penalty cannot be made fair by transforming it into a provision requiring payment of a fee for exercising a contractual option."

(But reading the POPLA ruling ..it can ??????????????)

Read it and weep POPLA and BPA ..any right minded judge at a County Court will understand this point ...

Sirdan

Glacier wrote: »

the BPA, they are nothing but a trade body but now have universal acceptance as a legal body in most county courts.

.

Utter tripe , show me ANY evidence from a County Court case, judges are well aware that BPA is a members club and their guidlines have no legal basis. Hence PPCs don't like doing court and lose more than they win ..

The_Slithy_Tove

Aaron_Aadvark wrote: »

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 state

"Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999

UnfairTerms

5.—(1) A contractualterm which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if,contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance inthe parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to thedetriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shallalways be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has beendrafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influencethe substance of the term."

5.-(2) refers to terms being "individually negotiated" and not to being displayed as POPLA would like. However POPLA agrees that the term was not individually negotiated as (2) requires.

POPLA therefore falls back on 5.-(1) and is clearly suggesting that the term "You will pay £100 to park on a specific piece of tarmac rather than another specific piece of tarmac and in return we will provide you a piece of tarmac for a short time" is in "good faith" and is not a "significant imbalance of the parties’ rights and obligations."

Maybe in future POPLA appeals, they should quote the law like this, in order to reduce the wriggle room POPLA are allowing themselves. Now we have a glimpse of their approach, their response can be pre-empted and shown to be wrong even before the appeal is heard.

It'll be an interative process tying them into knots of their own making.

BASFORDLAD

Over on CAG, bankfodder says some of my arguments were rediclious, yet my defence was shaped by some of the experts on here based on sound legal knowledge.

Where does he get of, well it is cag so perhaps shouldn't expect any better....

edward123

Well, it might be obvious to better minds than mine, or not, but it appears to simple me that the POPLA dudes just go by the BPA's guidelines for AOS PPC's and if you run foul of them, those every same guidelines, POPLA will 'automaticall'y reject the appeal. In effect POPLA are just there for the PPC's. No citing any law, contract law, unfair law, equality law by the appealer will make any difference. So I should think then that no judge or very few judges will decide against defences like basfordlad's simply because what POPLA decided. The POPLA decision would carry no weight at all in a court of law?

Stroma

Despite everything they are not above the Equality Act , if people are prepared to take the bull by the horns and issue a claim against the parking company, the retailer or service provider, and popla I think the whole thing will either unravel or popla must take points of statute law into consideration.