Popla

Stroma

Just seen this by prankster, from it I take the following

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/popla-november-2013-newsletter.html

1) 550 appeals per week = 28,600 per annum
2) At a cost of £926,640 to the parking industry
3) And circa £2,860,000 to the bpa at a cost of £100 a time

My question is can the bpa figure be correct? Surely that is more than their turnover per year?

Redx

also interesting is the use of the word TRICK and I assume they mean TICK

5 | P a g e
There is no need to use formal or legalistic language. If an appellant cannot work out which ground of appeal to trick, they should simply explain what their appeal is about and submit it, although remembering that the Assessor cannot allow an appeal because of mitigating circumstances.

Stroma

Reading further on

Operators must, on every occasion, include the verification code in their rejection of representations. The recipient of the rejection should not have to ask for it.

Failure by an operator to provide a verification code in their rejection letter is a breach of the Code of Practice, sanctionable by the BPA.

Rather than just a reference, the verification code should be clearly identifiable as such, for example:
Your verification code, which you will need to appeal to POPLA, is XXXXXXXXXX.

Even if the verification code is automatically printed on an enclosed appeal form, it must still be in the dated rejection notice/letter. If it is not, and if the issue arises, it may then be difficult for the operator to show exactly when the verification code was provided to an appellant.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

2 | P a g e
Operator’s rejection
Whether described as a notice or letter, the operator’s rejection of initial representations made to them in respect of a parking charge notice is important. It should set out the reasons for the rejection, dealing with all matters that have been raised. Experience shows that rejections that do so may well mean that an appeal to POPLA does not follow, if the recipient can see that all their points have been satisfactorily addressed.
Under no circumstances whatsoever is it appropriate for an operator to suggest in a rejection that an appeal to POPLA is ‘unwise’, ‘unnecessary’, ‘bound to fail’ or anything similar.
If an appeal comes before POPLA where it appears that operator appears to have been actively dissuading an appellant from making an appeal, the matter may have to be referred to the BPA.

This is EXACTLY what ANPR Ltd do when they say " you will agree it is unwise to appeal further" in their initial rejection letter

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

With the last newsletter we enclosed two model witness statements. These were drafted by the Lead Adjudicator in the interests of efficiency. They were not created or provided by any party to proceedings or by the BPA. It is common practice in courts and tribunals for model forms to be produced.
In many cases such forms will deal with the issues raised, without the necessity of the production of, in this case, contracts, which may be voluminous with much detail that is irrelevant to the issues to be decided.

Workshops
POPLA has not run workshops of any description. POPLA does not provide coaching sessions for parties to appeals, or anyone else. Media and internet forum suggestions to the contrary are incorrect.
It is common for judicial heads of tribunals to attend conferences and seminars, and occasionally to speak at them. Such events may be subject based or purely legal but will always relate to principles.
As is also common throughout the court and tribunal system, from time to time user groups may be attended by administrative staff but these will never deal with individual cases.

Someones feathers were ruffled

Stroma

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Someones feathers were ruffled

I agree was wondering if they got upset when I asked for a workshop on how to word a successful appeal a number of times lol. To be frank I don't believe them, they have been caught with their pants down on this

Stroma

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

This is EXACTLY what ANPR Ltd do when they say " you will agree it is unwise to appeal further" in their initial rejection letter

And they are still doing it, as well as hiding a popla code, I'm wondering if Trev has incriminating photos of Patrick Troy and a sheep? I mean what does it take to get this moron kicked out of the bpa?

hoohoo

Stroma wrote: »

Just seen this by prankster, from it I take the following

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/popla-november-2013-newsletter.html

1) 550 appeals per week = 28,600 per annum
2) At a cost of £926,640 to the parking industry
3) And circa £2,860,000 to the bpa at a cost of £100 a time

My question is can the bpa figure be correct? Surely that is more than their turnover per year?

I'm wondering if economies of scale will kick in. POPLA published their average appeal time as 3 hours a while back. Perhaps they have got this down a lot.

Ironically, sites like this are doing POPLA and the BPA a huge favour. If all appeals started with the line...I wish to consider GPEOL...then the assessors can bang out a verdict within minutes, really bringing costs down.

Perhaps POPLA/BPA should consider either putting this up on their web site, or automatically considering GPEOL on behalf of the motorist for all operators who have failed on this point in the past.

Stroma

What should happen is that until they can prove a genuine pre estimate of loss at a site, all popla appeals at said site should automatically be allowed as the operator has no basis or justification for a charge to stand.

HO87

Stroma wrote: »

Just seen this by prankster, from it I take the following

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/popla-november-2013-newsletter.html

1) 550 appeals per week = 28,600 per annum
2) At a cost of £926,640 to the parking industry
3) And circa £2,860,000 to the bpa at a cost of £100 a time

My question is can the bpa figure be correct? Surely that is more than their turnover per year?

Its certainly more than their turnover year ending 31 March 2013. Let's see what this year's report brings. Their turnover should have increased substantially and I wonder if there will be a greater deficit that might give us a clue as to the degree of dissent within their ranks.

waamo

Stroma wrote: »

And they are still doing it, as well as hiding a popla code, I'm wondering if Trev has incriminating photos of Patrick Troy and a sheep? I mean what does it take to get this moron kicked out of the bpa?

Sadly only 3 people have bothered to complain to the DVLA about Trev so I guess it isn't high on their agenda.