POPLA- Result now in

Taiko

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

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....

Why on earth would CAG allow facts to get in the way of aggression against "the man"?

Trebor16

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

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

CAG, where mention of Pepipoo is removed as it is touting (according to them)!!

SodG24

So I guess the standard advice of "IGNORE" continues for most people while those of us with the knowledge use POPLA in the hope of showing up the corrupt partnership between the PPCs, BPA and POPLA.

The_Slithy_Tove

SodG24 wrote: »

So I guess the standard advice of "IGNORE" continues for most people while those of us with the knowledge use POPLA in the hope of showing up the corrupt partnership between the PPCs, BPA and POPLA.

With the caveat that a single piece of evidence does not constitute a trend or basis for generalisation ...

If appeals to POPLA will almost always go against the appellant, and if that emboldens PPCs to head off to the courts, then the approach of go-to-POPLA-and-then-stick-two-finger-up-to-the-PPC will not be for the feint-hearted. Ignore is probably the best approach for a quiet life/line of least resistance to a 100% discount.

Glacier_2

Sirdan wrote: »

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 ..

There are many cases where tame judges have accepted the BPA guidelines as law and have found in favour incorrectly for the PPC.

What is feared is the same will happen with POPLA. Perky and his ilk will try and convince the same judges that POPLA is a proper tribunal. The sad thing is that a few will fall for it.

trisontana

As Alexis has pointed out on PepiPoo - "who the hell are Popla?". In other words are they a proper tribunal with the weight of law behind them, or just third party who's opinions carry no more weight than the guy in the pub who thinks he knows a bit about the law.

spacey2012

I think we can all be in agreement, POPLA are a kangaroo court for parking companies.
One that brushes aside law and replaces it with spin and long worded drivel .
Another layer of fake authority to trick drivers in to believing they actually are an authority.
Just another rotten tomato in the box of rotten fruit that is the private parking industry.

Sirdan

Glacier wrote: »

There are many cases where tame judges have accepted the BPA guidelines as law and have found in favour incorrectly for the PPC.

What is feared is the same will happen with POPLA. Perky and his ilk will try and convince the same judges that POPLA is a proper tribunal. The sad thing is that a few will fall for it.

There may be "many" cases where their is either no defence or an inadequate one, but in properly defended cases the same does not hold true.

As I recall there were only 49 cases the whole of last year and the PPCs lost more than half ..so not "many cases" at all really...

It seems to me that POPLA are ruling on whether or not a PPC was correct in issuing a Charge and they are using BPA guidelines as there measure.
That has no bearing of whether or not the driver or RK is liable at law to pay the charge, that requires correct interpretation of relevant law by a competent lawful statutory authority which is most certainly not POPLA.

The whole thing is a sham / farce ....if the POPLA is not binding on the driver/keeper but only on the PPC and they continue to find for the PPCs using the nonsene reasoning that has been shown in this first "test case" then the question remains what exactly is the point of the POPLA at all ???????????

Looking forward to the first CC Judge who knows his law tearing holes in POPLA's total ignorance of said law(s)..

Aaron_Aadvark

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

With the caveat that a single piece of evidence does not constitute a trend or basis for generalisation ...

I quite agree. However, I am sure that the early 'judgements' were agreed and reviewed within POPLA to ensure the 'right' results were produced.

Aaron_Aadvark

trisontana wrote: »

As Alexis has pointed out on PepiPoo - "who the hell are Popla?". In other words are they a proper tribunal with the weight of law behind them, or just third party who's opinions carry no more weight than the guy in the pub who thinks he knows a bit about the law.

London Councils have stated that "POPLA is not a statutory tribunal."

(System will not me provide a link to the source of the quotation)