We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA Annual Report - Major Error in Figurework
Options
Umkomaas
Posts: 43,348 Forumite
I have been looking at the breakdown of appeals by PPC and the percentages won and lost.
The first thing that jumped out at me is the most obvious of errors in that if 52% of appeals have been won, then 48% must have been lost. Yet POPLA shows 46% lost. Primary school error, surely.
I then did a mental arithmetic check of the absolute figures, and no way was I coming up with the grand totals POPLA was showing at the foot of their colummns. Cue Excel spreadsheet.
Having put through the data my figures are (POPLA's in brackets):
Appeals Allowed - 1065 (806)
Appeals Refused - 910 (731)
% Appeals Allowed - 54% (52%)
% Appeals Refused - 46% (46%) - hooray!!
Jeez, this is very basic spreadsheeting.
So if these BASICs are so obviously inaccurate, what else is 'inaccurate' in this major piece of work?
Who did the figures?
Who did the proof reading?
Who signed this off?
Who will be held responsible for the misleading data?
A very poor show POPLA.
If this sloppiness is so obvious, yet totally missed by those in charge, what confidence can the motorist (or even the Government) have in POPLA's ability to undertake its primary role without similar lack of attention to detail?
ADDENDUM
And POPLA has the audacity to criticise Internet advice as 'misleading' - WOW!! Well that bit will blow up in their face for sure!
The first thing that jumped out at me is the most obvious of errors in that if 52% of appeals have been won, then 48% must have been lost. Yet POPLA shows 46% lost. Primary school error, surely.
I then did a mental arithmetic check of the absolute figures, and no way was I coming up with the grand totals POPLA was showing at the foot of their colummns. Cue Excel spreadsheet.
Having put through the data my figures are (POPLA's in brackets):
Appeals Allowed - 1065 (806)
Appeals Refused - 910 (731)
% Appeals Allowed - 54% (52%)
% Appeals Refused - 46% (46%) - hooray!!
Jeez, this is very basic spreadsheeting.
So if these BASICs are so obviously inaccurate, what else is 'inaccurate' in this major piece of work?
Who did the figures?
Who did the proof reading?
Who signed this off?
Who will be held responsible for the misleading data?
A very poor show POPLA.
If this sloppiness is so obvious, yet totally missed by those in charge, what confidence can the motorist (or even the Government) have in POPLA's ability to undertake its primary role without similar lack of attention to detail?
ADDENDUM
And POPLA has the audacity to criticise Internet advice as 'misleading' - WOW!! Well that bit will blow up in their face for sure!
Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
0
Comments
-
I must be dim, the heat you know, but why the hooray for the 46% of appeals refused? More appeals allowed than refused, good show.
The important bit is that the costs work out at £137 per appeal, refused or no, so its a no brainer--Appeals everything then they may go bust.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0 -
peter_the_piper wrote: »I must be dim, the heat you know, but why the hooray for the 46% of appeals refused? More appeals allowed than refused, good show.
The important bit is that the costs work out at £137 per appeal, refused or no, so its a no brainer--Appeals everything then they may go bust.
The hooray was for them getting 1 figure correct, not for rejecting 46% of appeals. But I can see its ambiguity. :rotfl:Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards