POPLA- Result now in

BASFORDLAD

Nope but I am sure haswell will he writhing to me shortly. As sure as I am that he is reading this

torontoboy45

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Nope but I am sure haswell will he writhing to me shortly. As sure as I am that he is reading this

'writhing'? as in 'agony'?

I hope he comes 'writhing' to me, one day.

Paperbird

FightOrFlight wrote: »

This quote seems to have come from the linked document. It's a gem (my brackets, underline and bold).

London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee. Proposed Appeals Service in relation to Parking on Private land.

"Whilst the new service [POPLA] has similarities with the existing Parking and Traffic Appeals Service, the key difference is that the new appeals service will be run by a non statutory body considering the merits of each case based on contract law whereas PATAS is a statutory body operating under Road Traffic law."

Source: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Item20.POPLAReport140612.doc

The "based on contract law" is why 99.9% of appeals to POPLA will fail.
The contract between land owner and PPC may say all the PPC are allowed to do is put a ticket on cars asking the driver to park with more consideration next time but POPLA will say they only rule on the contract between the driver and the PPC. "Appeal denied, the sign states you must pay £100 and you have broken their rules so you have to pay".

The_Slithy_Tove

Paperbird wrote: »

The "based on contract law" is why 99.9% of appeals to POPLA will fail.
...
the sign states you must pay £100 and you have broken their rules so you have to pay".

But they can't even get that right. They have made no consideration as to whether a contract has been formed, no consideration as to whether it's applicable, no consideration as to Unfair Terms, ignores the contradiction of so-called contracts (signs) which say "if you break these rules, you pay £100", which are effectively breaches of contract resulting in penalties, and thus unenforceable.

If they are going to concentrate on contract law, maybe they ought to have even a minimal legal grounding in the same.

Paperbird

They don't need to get it right as you can't appeal about anything they say.

As they told BASFORDLAD " The legal submissions of the Appellant set out above are not accepted. The Appellant parked the vehicle in the car park, thereby agreeing to the contractual terms and conditions displayed on the signs."

Or to put it another way " we don't care what the law says about it "

Stroma

I keep on pumping this, if they by not accepting an appeal regarding the Equalties Act 2010 that disadvantages a disabled person then it's a breach, I would say the landowner, parking company and popla will be liable.

It is far easier to prove a breach as the bpa cop actually has a section on this that ppcs must abide by. Sending a claim and it going to the small claims will help bring the house of cards down.

Aaron_Aadvark

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

If they are going to concentrate on contract law, maybe they ought to have even a minimal legal grounding in the same.

If POPLA were to allow an appeal on a legal point (rather than a factual point eg you parked too long/over a line/in a disabled space etc) then the word would spread like wildfire through MSE, Pepipoo etc. The point would be then used in every appeal which would have to be allowed.

So POPLA cannot allow an appeal on a legal ground.

However, a PPC needs a legal ground, rather than a factual point to win in court.

Interesting!

Stroma

But by not allowing an appeal on the basis of an Equality Act breach, they could be leaving themselves open to claim. The whole thing is a mess

The_Slithy_Tove

Aaron_Aadvark wrote: »

If POPLA were to allow an appeal on a legal point (rather than a factual point eg you parked too long/over a line/in a disabled space etc) then the word would spread like wildfire through MSE, Pepipoo etc. The point would be then used in every appeal which would have to be allowed.

So POPLA cannot allow an appeal on a legal ground.

And there was I thinking that POPLA were going to base their decisions in the basis of contract law. I wonder where I got that notion from.

Aaron_Aadvark

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

And there was I thinking that POPLA were going to base their decisions in the basis of contract law. I wonder where I got that notion from.

POPLA wrote:

Having considered the evidence presented by both parties the Assessor has to come to a conclusion about what actually happened (make findings of fact). The Assessor then has to apply the relevant law to these findings of fact. In cases where the Assessor determines that you are liable for the parking charge, he or she must refuse the appeal.

I'm not sure how you formed such a strange idea.
:rotfl: