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

Stroma

My view is that if everyone and I mean everyone ignored these fake tickets then the whole scam would implode, but getting circa 2m people to ignore this is nigh on impossible, some mug would pay!

As for popla I have said from the start it's not fit for purpose, you basically need a law degree to win there, or get assisted from here or pepipoo, cag is useless as they are on a different planet right now with this.

I would say most of those 7k of winners came from the 2 sites directly, or got the wording from us, or some of our contributors like parking prankster, parking cowboys or other sites set up.

When popla goes I will crack open a few cans

zzzLazyDaisy

Firemanbill wrote: »

I thought we were on the same side.

You are either seriously deluded, or unable to read, or both.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is, was, and will be, for the foreseeable future, my position that notwithstanding the fact that POPLA is in the back pocket of the BPA, for so long as forum advisers continue to beat POPLA/BPA at their own game, and for so long as forum assisted motorists continue the 100% winning streak at POPLA, then we should continue to advise and assist them to appeal to POPLA at no cost and little stress to them and at a not insignificant cost to both PPC and BPA. Win-Win in my book.

Hope that clarifies your little misunderstanding of the situation.

Daisy

PS KIF - I too thought your original title was more accurate and also more helpful for forum newbies.

Computersaysno

I'm a convert.

I was an advocate of ignore but I now subscribe to the POPLA route.

Couple of caveats....

If the PPC is not AOS/BPA then iirc ignore is still the best option

For myself I am happy to continue with 'ignore', right up until I get court papers...but for the vast majority of the public POPLA is the safer bet. [I'm quite happy dealing with court stuff etc].

Hovite_2

Firemanbill wrote: »

Finally I feel we are close to violently agreeing. If ignoring worked before POPLA because it's effective in the broader legal context, it works now, irrespective of the kangaroo process which has been created. More than 50 in a hundred appeals are failing and the number is rising. That's because the scammers are getting a handle on the process and, as I have posted passim ad nauseam, THEY FUND THE PROCESS. It was the cost of their gaining access to DVLA data. What? You think they want it any more than we do? It's a sham and they know it and so do we.

Then you clearly don't understand the RK liability within POFA !!!!

salmosalaris

Think of it this way . If you could get every PE ticket appealed to POPLA it would cost them over 16 million quid last year and the BPA over 60 million just to process PE appeals .
Of course that won't happen but the more appeals that are made , the greater the financial impact .

Hovite_2

Let's see - who's advice would I trust ?

zzzLazyDaisy - a retired solicitor, or Firemanbill - someone that doesn't understand the workings of POFA ?

Hmmmmmm ...... difficult one. I've always liked daisys - bright and pretty !

zzzLazyDaisy

Hovite wrote: »

I've always liked daisy - bright and pretty !

Amended your typo for you

Dx

Hovite_2

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Amended your typo for you

Dx

Modest too

nobbysn*ts

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

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...)

Hope you don't mind me asking, where does the POFA actually say that as a requirement, as I've looked for it a couple of times before?

Folkiedave

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Hope you don't mind me asking, where does the POFA actually say that as a requirement, as I've looked for it a couple of times before?

Rather than work your way through the complexities of the law - try the POPLA website:

"

The Act also introduced the concept of 'keeper liability' for vehicles parked on private land. However, for this, there had to be an independent appeals service, provided by funding from the parking industry.

That independent service is known as Parking on Private Land Appeals or POPLA.

Assessors at POPLA determine appeals from those who have been issued with parking charge notices, in respect of vehicles parked on private land. The motorist must first have made their case (‘representations’) to the operator who issued the parking charge notice and have had their representations rejected.