POPLA independence

Essingeviken

POPLA maintain that they are independent.

It seems to me that ALL of the cases at POPLA involve an incorrect genuine pre-estimate of loss.

If they are truly independent, why don't they draw people's attention to this aspect of the law on their website...maybe include some standard text to be included in the appeal.

We can all then do something more productive and maybe...just maybe...the PCN's will be reduced to an amount that really is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. :beer:

bazster

It is my suspicion that POPLA is being "used" by the British Parking Association Ltd. and the PPC's. Some appeals must be allowed, otherwise the process will be seen to be a sham. All GPEOL appeals are known to be allowed whilst other appeals on equally strong grounds (even "I was parked on my own land") are mystifyingly refused. So, why does a company like ParkingEye keep on submitting the same idiotic evidence to POPLA regarding GPEOL when it knows full well that it will lose (bearing in mind that the number of cases ParkingEye loses at POPLA is a vanishingly small proportion of the tickets it issues)?

If I'm right, every "successful" GPEOL appeal to POPLA, far from being a blow against BPA Ltd. and the PPC's, actually plays right into their hands and strengthens them.

The_Slithy_Tove

Essingeviken wrote: »

If they are truly independent, why don't they draw people's attention to this aspect of the law on their website...maybe include some standard text to be included in the appeal.

BECAUSE they're independent and can't be seen to be "coaching" one side or the other, least of all actually running workshops for just one side of the "battle". Oh, oops :mad:

peter_the_piper

Essingeviken wrote: »

POPLA maintain that they are independent.

It seems to me that ALL of the cases at POPLA involve an incorrect genuine pre-estimate of loss.

If they are truly independent, why don't they draw people's attention to this aspect of the law on their website...maybe include some standard text to be included in the appeal.

We can all then do something more productive and maybe...just maybe...the PCN's will be reduced to an amount that really is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. :beer:

Maybe the fact that they give coaching lessons to PPC's is a clue, along with contract provided by BPA.

Coupon-mad

Yep, good points. Although not all cases lend themselves to 'GPEOL', most certainly do.

I think we should have a campaign for people to write to POPLA and state that their 4 appeal points are detrimental to the public, since we know they were dreamed up by the BPA a year ago. As covered by the Parking Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/secret-reasons-you-can-use-in-your.html

The 4 points do NOT 'focus a motorists' mind' at all. It is in fact misleading practice (in breach of the CPUTR 2008) to mis-state facts that would make a consumer take a different decision. And we have seen consumers post on here 'I didn't bother with a POPLA appeal as my case didn't fit any of the 4 points on the POPLA website'.

That is certainly against CPUTR 2008 on the part of POPLA. We should write to Richard Reeve and say that it is high time POPLA dumped the misleading BPA-fed lines and instead told motorists what sort of points win and lose, with examples on the website to 'focus their mind'. Seeing as the other side in PPC World get the benefit of reading a report each year which your average driver is NEVER going to see.

Essingeviken

I am sure you are correct, but the consequences of this is that there isn't really any reason to argue on any other basis. A couple of sentences on GPEOL is all that is needed for the vast majority of cases.

A bit of visibility on this...via Watchdog, money box etc. would then ensure that the whole game swings in favour of the victims rather than the PCs.

Essingeviken

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep, good points. Although not all cases lend themselves to 'GPEOL', most certainly do.

I think we should have a campaign for people to write to POPLA and state that their 4 appeal points are detrimental to the public, since we know they were dreamed up by the BPA a year ago. As covered by the Parking Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/secret-reasons-you-can-use-in-your.html

The 4 points do NOT 'focus a motorists' mind' at all. It is in fact misleading practice (in breach of the CPUTR 2008) to mis-state facts that would make a consumer take a different decision. And we have seen consumers post on here 'I didn't bother with a POPLA appeal as my case didn't fit any of the 4 points on the POPLA website'.

That is certainly against CPUTR 2008 on the part of POPLA. We should write to Richard Reeve and say that it is high time POPLA dumped the misleading BPA-fed lines and instead told motorists what sort of points win and lose, with examples on the website to 'focus their mind'. Seeing as the other side in PPC World get the benefit of reading a report each year which your average driver is NEVER going to see.

You are absolutely correct. I read those before submitting my own (unsuccessful) appeal. Had I been correctly advised (by finding this forum) I would have succeeded.

With the greatest of respect to the excellent people on this forum, I fear the current approach is like seeing a rattlesnake and throwing it a bit of food rather than cutting its head off.

bazster

Essingeviken wrote: »

With the greatest of respect to the excellent people on this forum, I fear the current approach is like seeing a rattlesnake and throwing it a bit of food rather than cutting its head off.

Very well put. Distracting the rattlesnake with a titbit enables you to make good your escape, but leaves the rattlesnake free to bite many, many more victims.

Coupon-mad

So Essingeviken, you are a genuine motorist who can write (with evidence of what happened) and complain to Richard Reeve because you made a different decision than you would have done, had you not been misled by the POPLA website. As a result instead of finding your spurious ticket cancelled you have been 'told' by POPLA that you 'should pay it' which is another misleading and wrong statement.

The website needs to state the position clearly for motorists, obviously without being biased but simply to inform them what POPLA may need to be told by a driver/keeper in terms of evidence.

After all we know that PPCs are coached about their evidence packs.

Essingeviken

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So Essingeviken, you are a genuine motorist who can write (with evidence of what happened) and complain to Richard Reeve because you made a different decision than you would have done, had you not been misled by the POPLA website. As a result instead of finding your spurious ticket cancelled you have been 'told' by POPLA that you 'should pay it' which is another misleading and wrong statement.

The website needs to state the position clearly for motorists, obviously without being biased but simply to inform them what POPLA may need to be told by a driver/keeper in terms of evidence.

After all we know that PPCs are coached about their evidence packs.

Sure ....I will do that. But at the moment I have letters going left, write and center on my case. I have a very reasonable discussion going on the with the landowner and I have written to POPLA complaining about the conduct of my assessor who seems unable to actually read the BPA Code of practice. I have also lodged a letter with the BPA who have agreed to investigate the signeage at the car park. What I really want to do, is get 'my' car park changed. Families have enough financial concerns these days without all this sort of crap.

Give me time.

Parking-Prankster

Nick Lester's answer, when I complained to London Councils that genuine pre-estimate of loss was not on the list of reasons for appealing on the POPLA web site was that:

"Common reasons for allowing appeals are discussed in the annual report and this is the appropriate place for that."

To be fair to him, I may have worded my complaint badly. Thanks for reminding me so that I can kick my complaint to the next level.

Meanwhile, if you feel strongly about this, you can complain to London Councils yourself, taking care to word your complaint better than I did.

You can also contact the new chair of the Independent Appeals Service, Nicola Mullany

She can be contacted either at the usual British Parking Association address or at [EMAIL="Nicola.Mullany@britishparking.co.uk"]Nicola.Mullany@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]

As chair, Ms Mullany will be no doubt extremely interested in making sure that POPLA are not only truly independent but are also seen to be independent, and will therefore be keen to get up and running and address any issues bought to her attention regarding true or perceived issues of independence.