Is POPLA currently fit for purpose? your opinions please

ABN

Interesting link posted by bama on PePiPoo

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Is-POPLA-currently-fit-purpose-3177815.S.5831405066493394947

Seems the PPC's an't happy :T

spacey2012

Any Government organisation that coaxes and pays training to one side of the fence on how to win and then deliberately conceals information to the other is neither fair , honest or lawful.
The term is corruption in public office.

We have to remember only a very tiny minority are won on legal points, the majority including where people have paid and been ticketed, or even ticketed on land they actually own are lost.

They allow where they fear the rath of a district judge and that is only because he has the power to have them arrested and brought to court.

Otherwise, they are as bent as a 63 pence note.

spacey2012

PS, some hilarious posts on there.

When a bunch of thick thugs think having 50 of them agreeing makes it Law.
Read vexatious to read (we are issuing illegal penalties contrary to English common law)

Disillusion does not sum up this bunch of thick thugs.

If you are a business employing this bunch, just go have a read at the kind of people you are letting lose on your customers.

Thick no necked greedy lying thug ex-clampers

ColliesCarer

Good find - interesting statistic given by the BPA guy
only 1.1% of tickets issued go to POPLA and as such could not form part of a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss

That's only 11 in every 1000 - clearly more word spreading needed - rolls sleeves up

bod1467

I've PMd the Prankster with a link to this thread.

dacouch

Amusing to see companies whose business rely on small print and catching people out are complaining about small print and being caught out.

Also nice to see the famous Anjna P and her amusing job title

teabelly

Hilarious. A bunch of whining babies the lot of them.

Consider how they always lose on not GPEOL you'd think these bone heads would have worked out how to make a GPEOL that would work with POPLA and in court.

bargepole

teabelly wrote: »

Hilarious. A bunch of whining babies the lot of them.

Consider how they always lose on not GPEOL you'd think these bone heads would have worked out how to make a GPEOL that would work with POPLA and in court.

There can't be any GPEOL, the PPC doesn't suffer any losses when someone breaches their alleged contract.

Any consideration is provided by the landholder, not the PPC, so they are the only ones who could conceivably suffer any loss.

The liquidated damages business model is fatally flawed, all the POPLA assessors realise that, and more and more County Court Judges are reaching the same conclusion.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Ironically, Perky seems to be one of the very few who's got it right. That Solihull Polytechnic faculty of law must be better than we thought.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Bargepole maybe you should enroll?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Had to laugh at someone bemoaning that it cost them an hour's labour at just above minimum age to put together a defence pack...

Then they whine that they lose all the time.

Their other mistaken belief is that they'd be better off in court where they'd win on pre-estimated loss/contract issues.

Trebor16

bargepole wrote: »

Ironically, Perky seems to be one of the very few who's got it right. That Solihull Polytechnic faculty of law must be better than we thought.

In terms of him working on the basis that anyone parking without a permit agrees to pay a contractual charge? But is it defeatable?