Shona does it again! (Popla)

mulronie

spacey2012 wrote: »

A county court might turn a blind eye, but an appeal court panel of 3 judges would not if the matter of right of audience were raised.

Actually the county court judge in VCS v Ibbotson touched on this, it was quite an entertaining read:

MR DOUGH: I am a Regional Operations Manager [...] Excuse my ignorance on the law side of this, sir, but the way I am looking at this is we are working as a representative or an agent of Wickes.
JUDGE: Be careful here [...] it is illegal to act as an advocate for another party when you do not have a right of audience .

Coupon-mad

mulronie wrote: »

Actually the county court judge in VCS v Ibbotson touched on this, it was quite an entertaining read:

JUDGE: Be careful here [...] it is illegal to act as an advocate for another party when you do not have a right of audience.

I like that argument, we should add it in for the next Shona case along with a bit more about a PPC not being able to form a contract with a driver.

Summat like:


''POPLA adjudicators will be aware that it is illegal to act as an advocate for another party when you do not have a right of audience. Therefore a private parking company (PPC) which has no ownership or proprietary rights at a site cannot take Court action 'on behalf of' the landowner/leaseholder.

POPLA should establish as fact that a PPC with no proprietary ownership can only act as an agent for the landholder in terms of stewarding, maintaining the car park, or clearing away snow (for example) - physical actions/services carried out for the landholder. Being an 'agent for a landholder' - even with a basic contract and paid-for BPA AOS members' club membership - does not enable a PPC to assume rights they simply do not possess - they cannot offer parking spaces on land not owned by them. Nor can putting some signs up suddenly form a contract with a third party driver who is already invited to park onsite by the landowner/leaseholder; it would hold as much legal weight as a janitor putting a sign up 'charging' people for dropping litter there.

The car park owner could take action if they suffer damages or loss, the owner can decide t&cs in a car park - but their agents remain 'just' their agents even where (as would be expected) they have permission to put some signs or cameras up and even if they have a basic contract. A PPC makes no loss in a car park they don't own.

In a free car park, no consideration is possible to be offered by any PPC without legal ownership - therefore they cannot form a contract with a driver. VCS -v- HMRC 2012UKUT130(TCC) refers to this specific point and I believe POPLA are already familiar with that binding Upper Chamber case. I request that POPLA cancels this 'fake PCN'.''



How about a fairly standard wording like that (or tweaked by others) so that POPLA and the PPCs see it again and again?! The deliberate use of the acronyms 'PPC' and 'fake PCN' tells the parking scammer all they need to know as to where the wording came from!

:rotfl:

MrDance

Coupon-mad wrote: »

How about a fairly standard wording like that (or tweaked by others) so that POPLA and the PPCs see it again and again?! The deliberate use of the acronyms 'PPC' and 'fake PCN' tells the parking scammer all they need to know as to where the wording came from!

:rotfl:

That would be very useful which is the correct legal case to quote for this HMRC v VCS or Somerfield case ?

Thanks for the help

TrickyWicky

You know I was all against this POPLA carp months ago like everyone else.

Now it looks like a good thing.. not only do they realise they're on the wrong side of the (as of yet unchanged) law and can't enforce tickets, they're also costing the PPCs per PCN referred to them :j

Hopefully POPLA will put the PPCs out of business themselves :T :beer:

peter_the_piper

I wonder how difficult it is for the BPA to get the popla money out of the ppc's? Its nice to inconvenience both the ppc and the bpa at the same time.

Kite2010

I wonder how long will it be until the BPA make up some charges to get rid of Shona. As she is costing them money.

fb1969

If a PPC obtain the RK's details from the DVLA and POPLA subsequently uphold an appeal, in my opinion it means that the PPC did not have reasonable cause to request the details. I guess in many POPLA cases the driver would have given their details durectly to the PPC in an appeal, so that wouldn't be in every case.

peter_the_piper

Kite2010 wrote: »

I wonder how long will it be until the BPA make up some charges to get rid of Shona. As she is costing them money.

Had she worked for them then maybe but as she is with London Councils it should be more difficult.

Stroma

fb1969 wrote: »

If a PPC obtain the RK's details from the DVLA and POPLA subsequently uphold an appeal, in my opinion it means that the PPC did not have reasonable cause to request the details. I guess in many POPLA cases the driver would have given their details durectly to the PPC in an appeal, so that wouldn't be in every case.

Wouldn't that only work with ANPR cameras though ? Because ticketers can only get the details after 28 days, then technically the popla option is gone.

fb1969

That is what I was trying to say when I put "I guess in many POPLA cases the driver would have given their details durectly to the PPC in an appeal" but you worded it better than I did