POPLA - another (flawed) decision

spacey2012

If I stood on the middle of town handing out fines to people who stand on pavement cracks, the first question would be what right do you have to do that.
POPLA should make this the starting point, not leave it to something that the victim has to raise.
They are an absolute disgrace !
POPLA is a kangaroo court.

Guys_Dad

spacey2012 wrote: »

If I stood on the middle of town handing out fines to people who stand on pavement cracks, the first question would be what right do you have to do that.
POPLA should make this the starting point, not leave it to something that the victim has to raise.
They are an absolute disgrace !
POPLA is a kangaroo court.

"In addition, the Operator states that they have been granted authority to issue parking charge notices at the site, and produced a contract between the Operator and the managing agent of the site to show this".

I originally posted a comment along the lines of yours till I re-read the OP, quoted above.

The reason for requesting proof in the appeal to the PPC is to have time to check out the validity of the contract. As things stand, OP hasn't seen contract which could be hot off the press!

HO87

What's more, as a managing agent do they actually have sufficient authority themselves to confer proprietary rights - to be VCS compliant - to MB? IMO a contract granting authority to issue parking charge notices originating from a managing agent is likely to see MB acting only as their agent and not on their own behalf.

Guys_Dad

HO87 wrote: »

What's more, as a managing agent do they actually have sufficient authority themselves to confer proprietary rights - to be VCS compliant - to MB? IMO a contract granting authority to issue parking charge notices originating from a managing agent is likely to see MB acting only as their agent and not on their own behalf.

I can only go on the managing company that a friend leases her flat from. The leaseholders bought out the freehold and are freeholders in a company. A couple of the freeholders became directors of the management company.

The agreement virtually gave the management company the ability to introduce such operational procedures as they thought fit. Absolute joke!

So , regrettably, it will be the lease or contract with the management comany that spells out what they can and can not do.

spacey2012

Yes thank you MR pedantic I read the OP statement in full,
The PPC States !
Well I can state my pavement crack fines are legitimate .
The fact is would anyone believe me and would I be expected to offer some proof.
POPLA should start by accrediting the PPC and it's contract and making sure it is legally binding on all.
Not rely on a ppc to state it does.
I find it very bemusing that someone claiming to be legally trained as Shona is would start the whole basis of the hearing on hearsay evidence from a PPC and let it ride straight over the appeal.
What a Joke they really are.

Half_way

There was a recent case where someone went for the PPC after ticketing them on their land ( harrasment/trespass etc etc), if a simalar thing was to happen here could this person also implicate the popla appeals board ?

Stroma

Half_way wrote: »

There was a recent case where someone went for the PPC after ticketing them on their land ( harrasment/trespass etc etc), if a simalar thing was to happen here could this person also implicate the popla appeals board ?

If it was me I would put a claim in to whoever allowed these idiots to ticket, the ticketing company for demands that they have no right to collect. And popla for basically for the sham that they say that a ppc has more rights over my land than I do. They are all IMO as guilty as each other.

surfboy1

Maybe this person ought to park without his permit again, then put in another, well worded appeal to POPLA and leave them with no wriggle room, just to see what shonas outcome is.

peter_the_piper

I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a valid permit was not displayed. This was a breach of the terms and conditions.

yes she is right, its just that she forgot 1 minor detail, the driver owned the right to park any vehicle he chose there which trumped any general T&C's the ppc relies on.

The_Slithy_Tove

spacey2012 wrote: »

I find it very bemusing that someone claiming to be legally trained as Shona is would start the whole basis of the hearing on hearsay evidence from a PPC and let it ride straight over the appeal.

I don't suppose that Shona was one of the jury in the Vicky Pryce case, or possibly even "the" juror that was asking the dumb questions that even the other jurors couldn't convince them were dumb (hence asking the judge). The level of understanding of the law is about equivalent.