POPLA Decisions

Computersaysno

Umkomaas wrote: »

I presume the assessor starts at point #1 and works down - then we might get to test out which are the 'weaker' points, and really sharpening up future appeals.

I think you're wrong.

They skim read looking for a 'low hanging fruit' ie simple way of closing the case.

Isn't that what ever sensible person would do?? From the adjudicators pov, why spend hours deliberating/researching a point when there's an obvious 'PPC loses' in the pack.

The adjudicator surely wants an easy life...hence as little effort as possible approach to 'do' cases makes sense.

Umkomaas

Computersaysno wrote: »

I think you're wrong.

They skim read looking for a 'low hanging fruit' ie simple way of closing the case.

Isn't that what ever sensible person would do?? From the adjudicators pov, why spend hours deliberating/researching a point when there's an obvious 'PPC loses' in the pack.

The adjudicator surely wants an easy life...hence as little effort as possible approach to 'do' cases makes sense.

I'm sure you're right, but by placing the 'banker' right at the end will test whether there might be equally 'easy pickings' for the assessor higher up the list. And if they 'bite' on an earlier point on which there has been no previous decision, then we have the makings of another 'must include'.

Orrin

Computersaysno wrote: »

From the adjudicators pov, why spend hours deliberating/researching a point when there's an obvious 'PPC loses' in the pack.

If anyone at POPLA spent more than a few minutes in deliberation or research it would be a miracle. This latest decision has the same copy and paste from VCS vs HMRC that they've been using for months without actually understanding it.

Computersaysno

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'm sure you're right, but by placing the 'banker' right at the end will test whether there might be equally 'easy pickings' for the assessor higher up the list. And if they 'bite' on an earlier point on which there has been no previous decision, then we have the makings of another 'must include'.

The chances are slim ...they will look for something that they already have decided upon [eg VCS] and rule on that.

PPranksters approach of appealing on purely one point is [sadly] the only way to test individual points [imo].

Guys_Dad

Computersaysno wrote: »

The chances are slim ...they will look for something that they already have decided upon [eg VCS] and rule on that.

That's good news for us. If they have a point they always will accept, then we know what's a winner. Yes, it would be good to have another "standard" other than the missing contract and the genuine pre-estimate of loss, nut as long as these work, I ain't quibbling! :beer:

Coupon-mad

Pepipoo poster Crème Egg reports another win against...Parking Eye of course!

This one is for not showing the contract with the landowner:


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83144

The Appellant has requested to see a copy of the contract between the landowner and the Operator, which bestows the Operator with the authority to make a contract with a driver who has parked on the land. The Appellant has submitted that the Operator does not have the authority to make a contract with the driver, because they lack landowner rights of possession.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner (if the Operator is not the landowner) to manage and enforce parking. This is set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Therefore the Operator is likely to have authority to issue parking charge notices.

However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority. A copy of the written authority the Operator submits they have from the landowner has not been produced.

Therefore, having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that they have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notice. As the Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifts to the Operator to prove otherwise. The Operator has not discharged this burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Matthew Westaby
Assessor

Umkomaas

A bit of variety for a change from the rather boring 'pre-estimate of losses' defeat for PE.

This time folks, it's a lack of contract - bet you can't wait.

Well done Rachel :T on keeping the forum interested in your totally unenforceable charges, by offering various permutations on PE's incompetence.

Edit : C-m (aka Pepipoo SRM) has faster typing fingers than me (I had added in quotes the Assessor transcript - but now see previous post from C-m).

Whatever - another great result

Coupon-mad

Beat ya to it, Umkomaas! :D:T

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Beat ya to it, Umkomaas! :D:T

And beat me again, just as I was editing - :rotfl:

jdybnsn

Is this a first ? I have just had an appeal case 'deleted' by POPLA ! Note it was not dismissed in my favour.
I was acting on behalf of some disabled elderly friends (I was a passenger in the car). It was in relation to charge by District Enforcement Ltd. It could be evidence that these particular guys don't even read the appeals letters they get, as I was upfront from the start, by stating I was replying on behalf of someone else (without giving their details). Obviously no one read it in my case, as I got a POPLA appeal number straight away, and then submitted a lengthy appeal, as there were so many breaches of codes and practices !- nobody at POPLA or DE Ltd ever asked my for the driver or keeper details ! I just got an acknowledgement the case would be heard in 2 months.
2 months passed and then I got an email from POPLA asking me to supply written evidence I had the driver's permission to act on their behalf - and still I wasn't asked who the driver was !!! To this day I was never asked by DE Ltd for this information even though they must have realised their error.

Well, I didn't supply the written evidence they asked for (they didn't for a start, supply me with a required method, format or address to send it to them , given all correspondence up to that point was by email) and I argued with POPLA that if DE Ltd couldn't even supply them with the most basic information as to the driver or keeper, then the case should be found in our favour.. and that in any case they, of all people, should know that DE Ltd were already out of time to obtain the RK details and serve a NTK, so the case couldn't now go anywhere.

Well POPLA didn't find in our favour, despite my protests - they just 'deleted' the case - haven't seen this action in their remit, nor the fact they require written authorisation if you are acting for a third party ?:(
Worse than that, it was DE Ltd that first informed me of this judgement, as they told me (in an email) that POPLA had discussed the case with them, and that would be the outcome (how come POPLA never discussed it with me ?). Lo & behold a week later, that's what POPLA informed me. Obvious which side, this so called independent body, POPLA are on then !!

Now surprise, surprise, my friends got a NTK this week from DE Ltd - so how come the DVLA supplied them this ??... don't they check that these firms are legally entitled to ask for this information ....they were way beyond the 56 day limit !!:mad:

Interested to hear if anyone else has suffered the fate of 'case deleted' at POPLA ??