Is POPLA currently fit for purpose? your opinions please

spacey2012

Trebor16 wrote: »

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

Yes because there is no offer to considerate he contract, nothing changes hands.
Where do you pay on the day if you accept.

Trebor16

spacey2012 wrote: »

Yes because there is no offer to considerate he contract, nothing changes hands.
Where do you pay on the day if you accept.

Has anyone ever defeated Perky in court?

Trebor16

This last one is very funny:-

Kevin McManus
Director at A S Parking
Top Contributor
Mark, thank you for your contribution; however you are side tracking from the topic of this thread.

I would be grateful if you started a new discussion if you wish to debate the issues that you have raised.

The purpose of this thread is to highlight that fact that POPLA is currently failing in its goal to deliver a fair and consistent service to all parties concerned, not just in respect of the decisions that they make; but financially.

No matter how you look at it, POPLA is sided with the motorist financially FACT.

There are also other major issues that need addressing with regard to appeals, however this not the place to discuss them AT THIS TIME.

Aaron_Aadvark

When the PoFA was being implemented, the BPA Ltd promised the Government an "Independent Appeals Service"; or

Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) now describes itself as an "alternative dispute resolution by way of arbitration".

Perhaps it should use the abbreviation POPLADRBWOA.

dacouch

IanMSpencer wrote: »

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.

This guy shows a distinct lack of understanding his business costs as the actual cost even at near minimum wages of the hours work would be a multiple of the hours wages

Fergie76

Stuart

Stuart Harrison
Commercial Director at UK Parking Control Ltd
I think that POPLA have got a number of things wrong, although I do not believe that this makes them unfit for purpose. I think they need to be stronger with vexatious appeals and focus on the key issues pertinent to the parking event, not a spurious claim that there is no contract or that the amount charged does not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

:rotfl:

So spurious, that they win every time.

Redx

the fact is that if they did a due diligence check on their own systems and rules prior to it going to popla, and the charges they impose being more in keeping with what popla would uphold then they would not get as many failures at popla in the first place

a bit like the CPP checking the police charges are valid before actually going to court and dropping anything that does not meet the criteria in full

to lose on the grounds of no valid landowner contract means they should not have allowed it to go to popla in the first place

same with no signage , its even hard enough to get them to acknowledge appeals or to give the codes when they reject the appeals

get their own house in order and they would find things would change, but they are blaming the motorists when they dont even abide by the BPA CoP despite the recent letter

as for POPLA, they should add more tick boxes to include GPEOL and landowner etc so that the appeal could be more targeted instead of 4 boxes that rarely apply in most cases that are referred to them

the fact is that they should ask themselves if they would win in court, if the answer is no then uphold the initial appeal and take it no further

but they want it to work with a coin that has heads we win , tails you lose on it

spacey2012

You will never explain to these people that the basis of contract law is you can not use what you do not own to offer as consideration (what you have to offer) in a contract.
Just as I can not offer tower bridge for sale by claiming I manage it.


The simple truth is the aspects of contract law would never be understood by thick thug wheel clampers.
No matter how hard you knocked it in.

They are thick for a reason.

James_N

This particular "legal advisor" thinks PCCs can make any unsubstantiated claim whatsoever, and that it's up to the person he's making a claim against to disprove it, rather than the PCC having to prove their ability to make a claim:

Here is his whine:
"Motorists should be entitled to explain on what evidence they based that assertion. Why is there a burden on the operator in perpetuity? It surely cannot be the case that no matter what a motorist says, the operator must establish to the contrary with evidence.
My point is that a motorist can make any claim about anything whatsoever and we must disprove it. If an independent assessor is supposed to be independent, they should start with a neutral position and decide the circumstances based on the facts. "

Er, no ... basically. The facts are often that the PCC has no legal authority to make a claim, and further that the claim is without any basis of actual loss and - or that no contract exists.

To argue that claims can be made WITHOUT a burden of proof that they are valid is - well - dare I say it - pretty stupid!

trisontana

spacey2012 wrote: »

You will never explain to these people that the basis of contract law is you can not use what you do not own to offer as consideration (what you have to offer) in a contract.
Just as I can not offer tower bridge for sale by claiming I manage it.


The simple truth is the aspects of contract law would never be understood by thick thug wheel clampers.
No matter how hard you knocked it in.

They are thick for a reason.

Not helped by the fact that the BPA Ltd still thinks that day-to-day running costs can be included within the mythical "losses" suffered by a particular parkingt incident.