Firemanbill's Advice - A Possible troll, please treat his advice with extreme caution

HO87

Firemanbill wrote: »

"Figures obtained by ITV News Meridian reveal almost 14,000 drivers have taken cases to an independent appeals panel. Of the cases heard, almost half have been won by drivers."

In their 6 month report signed in June by Henry Michael Greenslade, POPLA claimed a 54% success rate for the motorist. According to the above story that figure has reduced to less than 50%. There a trend there, n'est-ce que pas?

You can't argue with these numbers - at present it's getting worse, rather than better, for the appellant motorist.

The figures represent an overall picture not one that deals with the cases that have been guided by the forums. You can't conflate the figures to suit.

nigelbb

Firemanbill wrote: »

"Figures obtained by ITV News Meridian reveal almost 14,000 drivers have taken cases to an independent appeals panel. Of the cases heard, almost half have been won by drivers."

Prior to POPLA those 7000 odd motorists would have been wrongly harassed by the PPCs for unenforceable parking charges and possibly taken to court. We should be celebrating the fact that 7000 innocent victims have been spared.

spikyone

Firemanbill wrote: »

"Figures obtained by ITV News Meridian reveal almost 14,000 drivers have taken cases to an independent appeals panel. Of the cases heard, almost half have been won by drivers."

In their 6 month report signed in June by Henry Michael Greenslade, POPLA claimed a 54% success rate for the motorist. According to the above story that figure has reduced to less than 50%. There a trend there, n'est-ce que pas?

You can't argue with these numbers - at present it's getting worse, rather than better, for the appellant motorist.

Yes you can - you should always look at a bald statistic and ask yourself whether it could be flawed. POPLA's report contains the following:

Assessors determine each appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced

In other words, provide rubbish evidence and you'll lose.

appeals relating to signage and to the proper display of permits and vouchers form the overwhelming majority of cases.

In other words, rubbish evidence has been provided. It's a statement, in black and white, of what we advise motorists. Don't do mitigation, don't talk about specifics of the event. Use the facts and in your evidence, ask for things you know the PPC can't provide (demonstration of genuine pre-estimate of loss, compliant contracts with landowner, etc).

POPLA is a no-lose scenario; either you win (and with the MSE forum's help, you will) and it goes away forever and ever, or you lose, and the PPC still has to take you to court - it says that in POPLA's report too. Why wouldn't you use POPLA?

hoohoo

Hi,

I help people in actual court cases, and go to court to help them. I can confirm Firemanbills advice is pure baloney.

A court case is not a guaranteed win, and one look at parkingeye's web site will show you that. However good your case is, if you don't have court experience and are up against an experienced solicitor, you are likely to lose. Fighting the case in court requires a lot of time and effort and you will probably be out of pocket even if you win, because you will not get your full lost wages for the day (costs are capped) or anything for the many hours involved in preparation.

On the other hand, fire off one short letter to the parking company, one short letter to popla and it all goes away, and it costs the parking company £27 and the BPA £100.

Simples.

Hovite_2

Firemanbill wrote: »

"Figures obtained by ITV News Meridian reveal almost 14,000 drivers have taken cases to an independent appeals panel. Of the cases heard, almost half have been won by drivers."

In their 6 month report signed in June by Henry Michael Greenslade, POPLA claimed a 54% success rate for the motorist. According to the above story that figure has reduced to less than 50%. There a trend there, n'est-ce que pas?

You can't argue with these numbers - at present it's getting worse, rather than better, for the appellant motorist.

You're being purposely obtuse with those figures. Anyone who gets a defence from here since May will win if they follow the advice given.

As for your "£200 isn't a lot and anyone who can't afford it shouldn't be driving" - well I couldn't afford £200 out of my already tight monthly budget but I drive because I budget for the costs. What about pensioners ? You expect them to give up their cars ? Seriously, ignore the invoices yourself if you wish but stop misleading people that ignore is perfectly safe - it isn't and there are plenty examples of Parking Eye for example issuing court papers.

zzzLazyDaisy

This is my comment about going to court from another thread. It is based on personal experience of being a corporate solicitor representing companies at all levels of the tribunals and court system. Frankly it really is not difficult to tie an unrepresented litigant up in knots so that even they begin to doubt what they are saying. Grossly unfair, but true nevertheless.

Daisy

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

My view as a lawyer (for what it is worth) is that ANY first level 'court' (including small claims court, employment tribunal, benefits tribunal etc) is a lottery - especially for an unrepresented litigant.

Why? Many reasons but here are the main ones:

1 Statistically an unrepresented person has a much lower prospect of success from the off. I have seen this phenomena many times in tribunal, when acting for both employer and employee against an unrepresented other side. It is what it is, and research bears this out.

2 Following on from 1, the unrepresented defendant often goes off in a frolic down a blind alley, banging on about the facts of the case, the 'unfairness' of what happened and the 'mitigating circumstances' without having any grasp of the law, or how to apply it to their own circumstances. So important issues that would have won the case are never aired. The Judge is NOT expected to know every twist and turn of the law relating to every case that comes before him/her. It is up to the parties to raise issues of fact and law that are relevant. So, for example, there may be a PoFA point that would kill the case stone dead (eg RK who was not the driver, with a windscreen ticket followed by a PCN 4 months later). The Judge may not be aware of PoFA, the PPC will NOT raise that point (why would they?) and the unrepresented defendant may not be aware of it.... OR may try to raise it on the day but be bamboozled by a PPC lawyer who is trained to win legal arguments and a judge who is looking for reasons to rule against the defendant because s/he has already decided that anarchy would rule if people were allowed to get away with not bothering to pay for their parking tickets just because they feel like it

3 following on from that - while a SCC judgement IS appeallable on issues of law, who is going to spend thousands of pounds appealling a judgement of £175 (or whatever)? Not many people - and the SCC judge knows that. The SCC judgment does not create precedent and two cases in the same court on the same day on the same facts can result in opposing judgments, and both are equally valid and lawful (unless appealed to a higher court and overturned).

If the above comments suggest that the SCC judges don't apply the law, or are unethical, then I wish to correct that assumption immediately. But the simple fact is that 9 times out of 10, a case is only as good as the person who is presenting it, and an unrepresented person is often immediately at a huge disadvantage.

Added to that, court proceedings can be time consuming and stressful for many people (yes I know some people enjoy the challenge, but many more don't).

Personally I would always advise people to use every avenue to get the PPC monkey off their back without going to court if possible.... appeal to POPLA (yes it is in the back pockets of the PPC industry, but while we can still beat them at their own game it is fairly painless and free to the appellant) .... COMPLAIN to the Principal landowner/retail park/ retailer / hospital whatever and get the charge cancelled.... ENGAGE with letters before claim using the Practice Direction (so far I have not heard of a single case where the LBC has been challenged actually proceeding to court).... Actively report breaches of PoFA / BPA CoP to BPA and DVLA (they have been known to step in and get charges cancelled).

Finally, if you have the misfortune of coming up against a solicitor or legal department that appears to be deliberately flouting the law, or failing to respond to letters, or knowingly pursuing cases that breach PoFA especially those where the BPA has stepped in to cancel the charge after court proceedings have started - Make a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, including a full copied set of your file of correspondence/papers and ask the SRA to investigate the solicitor/legal dept. One complaint on its own probably won't make much impact (there are always crazies out there making random complaints!) but repeated complaints by unconnected members of the public will eventually result in an investigation.

Sorry for the essay

Daisy

esmerobbo

Firemanbill wrote: »

Daisy, what are you going to advise when POPLA collapses?

If I could answer that, then we can then go back to ignoring them because without an independent (or not) appeals system POFA would not apply!

Firemanbill

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

This is my comment about going to court from another thread. It is based on personal experience of being a corporate solicitor representing companies at all levels of the tribunals and court system. Frankly it really is not difficult to tie an unrepresented litigant up in knots so that even they begin to doubt what they are saying. Grossly unfair, but true nevertheless.

Daisy

Agree with a lot of that, Sorry, can't quote the bit I wanted to because it's already a quote. But I particularly like the statement that a challenged LBA has never resulted in an action! That's because the invoice is a scam in the first place. The pre-estimate of loss alone would trip up most companies' efforts to take the scam debt to court. You could also have mentioned the onus on the aggrieved party to pursue ADP, which they are really reluctant to do. And don't make me laugh by trying to position Poopla as ADR. The point amply brought out by your post is that there are many opportunities to derail the scam express and a decision to ignore is far from a being decision to go to court. I just hope the unitiated take the trouble to research ALL the steps they can take in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event that they receive something that purports to be a LBA. Play the probability game to your advantage. Poopla is still lipstick on a pig. You have a better than evens chance of losing, save your energy. There is a 1 in 380,000 chance of going to court at the end of the day.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

But surely its best to play the system to your advantage

Its not perfect, nothing thats connected to the BPA is, but it is what it is and its helped a lot of people so far

Ive had many thankful emails from people who have won and popla and they are so relieved that its a worry of their shoulders.

Now i appreciate you may not be a troll but please accept that we have to give people the best possible current advice that wont end up costing them

zzzLazyDaisy

Firemanbill wrote: »

Daisy, what are you going to advise when POPLA collapses?

Advice as requested:

'Cheer! Get the bunting out! Have a street party! Crack open the champagne!'

POPLA (or at least an 'independent' appeals service funded by BPA) is a pre-condition of POFA 2012. No appeals service, no POFA, and England & Wales are once again on a par with Scotland and NI, and 'ignore' once again becomes good advice.

What's not to celebrate?

(Though I don't think it will happen like that - it is far more likely that the name/branding will be reworked, and they will all carry on as before under a different banner...)