POPLA - another (flawed) decision

Guys_Dad

spacey2012 wrote: »

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.

Had the adjudication stopped at "In addition, the Operator states that they have been granted authority to issue parking charge notices at the site," I would be with you 100% but it went on to say " and produced a contract between the Operator and the managing agent of the site to show this".

How does that differ from POPLA getting the contract before the appeal - and for clarity I mean as far as the verdict went? The production of the contract means it is NOT hearsay evidence, unfortunately.

This should go to the next stage but appellant needs to see contract and check again the lease conditions with management company.

peter_the_piper

I don't think there is a next stage unless the ppc takes it to small claims. Please correct me if I have misunderstood this.

Guys_Dad

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I don't think there is a next stage unless the ppc takes it to small claims. Please correct me if I have misunderstood this.

Yes, you are right. The onus is on the PPC to go to court.

peter_the_piper

I wonder if it would make POPLA really sit up and take notice if one of the ones they chucked out was taken to small claims and it was resoundingly won by the driver. Good time to send them a copy of the case and ask for their comments. Copy to London Councils of course.

Kite2010

Next step will be court...

...which the PPC won't do

Coupon-mad

Someone should tell Shona that 'having a contract saying they can issue fake PCNs' is not the same as having proprietary rights which would allow them to offer parking spaces, form alleged contracts with drivers, and possibly pursue a charge.

Guys_Dad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Someone should tell Shona that 'having a contract saying they can issue fake PCNs' is not the same as having proprietary rights which would allow them to offer parking spaces, form alleged contracts with drivers, and possibly pursue a charge.

That is why I believe it is important to ask for proof of legitimacy pre-POPLA stage so that appellant can see exactly what contract terms they have.

The Somerfield / Parking Eye case is the perfect example of a PPC exceeding its agreement with a client.

If they don't disclose at internal appeal stage, you don't get to see the contract at POPLA stage, but if they go to court, then they have to pre-disclose for sure. And then you have time to look at the two basic contracts in place. Yours with management company and theirs with PPC.

Fergie76

We need someone to appeal to POPLA addressing both the penalty and contractual points to see what Shona says about it then.

Has anyone had a reply from anyone other than Shona?

And I also think that you should be able to appeal to the Chief Adjudicator should you not agree with the Adjudicators decision as you have no way of addressing their points else. At least with a personal appearance at Council Adjudication you can put across your side.

spacey2012

Fergie76 wrote: »

W

And I also think that you should be able to appeal to the Chief Adjudicator should you not agree with the Adjudicators decision as you have no way of addressing their points else. At least with a personal appearance at Council Adjudication you can put across your side.

That would be the Chief adjudicator that sit on the board of the BPA
The trade organisation funded and run by parking firms for and in the interests of parking firms.