POPLA- Result now in

atilla

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

I personally think we shouldnt bother to advise people to go to popla from now on

Agreed. That said, there is at least one company who exclude themselves from being able to use popla due to the wording in their letters. On that basis ignore would definitely appear to remain the best option.

spacey2012

It was to be expected, Ignoring them from the outset is best, it's less hassle, it creates no joinder with contracts.

They will be able to Offset the POPLA Kangaroo court fee against tax.
All it will do is to convince them they actually have some authority and that they are running a legitimate business as opposed to scamming the sick, elderly and poorly educated members of society.

Or as they are more commonly know, vulnerable people.
You dont dance along with con artists, charlatans and scammers, you give them the time of day they deserve, a trip to the bin or shredder with their fictitious claims.
Spread the word, ignore them.

Let them sue if they think they can, they are yet to win a correctly defended case and if they do, ramp it up to appeal court, they have no right of audience as a litigant on person, the landowner must employ a barrister themselves.
One thing the judiciary wont have is jumped up clerk from a parking company claiming to have a right of audience in high court.

The livelihood of the entire legal profession depends on it.

BASFORDLAD

Manxred did you have hasbeen in mind

ManxRed

No, POPLA themselves. I was under the impression that you can raise a complaint of misconduct against them.

http://www.popla.org.uk/Complaints.htm

The_Slithy_Tove

Paperbird wrote: »

I believe that in the legislation that brought POPLA in ( and the BPA rules ) it states that any amount on the signs must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, so how can POPLA say what the PPC is claiming doesn't need to be a pre-estimate because it's the amount shown on the sign ??

You believe wrong, in that POFA did not bring in POPLA (the legislation makes no mention of it, it was simply a condition laid down by the government before enacting Schedule 4 of POFA), and the BPA rules are just the arbitrary made-up rules of the PPC members' club.

However, the guidelines around POFA do talk avout pre-esitmate of loss. POPLA have decided (no doubt by being told by BPA) that suddenly it's not a loss due to breach of contract they are pursuing, but actually part of the contract itself. Weasel words to be sure, and totally unjustifyable.

Dave_TH

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

I personally think we shouldnt bother to advise people to go to popla from now on

partly agree but we need to see a few more results before deciding a course of action, maybe a good time to start an "appeal fund" for a real court.

BASFORDLAD

Not really dave,

If cases go to court the are not much in the way if costs etc

Half_way

No surprises with the pola independant adjucation - if you can call it that, rubber stamp may be more appropiate.
The real test will come when, or if a few cases go before a few judges.

Stroma

Fergie76 wrote: »

On motorway services, you can generally pay at W H Smiths or the restaurant as well.

But they don't say that on the signs, if you just use the toilet then over stay having a kip then you won't see it. Anyway a discussion for a different thread maybe

Stroma

Well if we advise to ignore everything unless the vehicle is not theirs, it won't be any different to the advice that's been given for years. No wonder the BPA said that only about 2% would use the service. Also its one to ponder, on one hand it costs them money, on the other if nobody uses it what happens then?