Is POPLA currently fit for purpose? your opinions please

hoohoo

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.

Some Judges have ruled you can offer tower bridge for sale if you are contracting in your own right upon it. (VCS v HMRC). Even though the sale cannot complete.

corbyboy

It's interesting that they keep talking about their "revenue streams." Aren't they supposed to be recovering their losses from the motorist? Strange that they keep referring to their "losses" as "revenue."

carandbike

wrote:

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

But aren't these key legal factors that the scam relies upon for their income? So how can they be treated as if they do not matter?

wrote:

When identical cases are getting contradicting outcomes, it becomes hard not to become frustrated.

Tell us about it! At POPLA and County Court!

I have had a number of meetings with POPLA and have found that they are understanding of the problems we are facing and prepared to listen and offer advice where they can. It is important that they are independent and are seen as independent

Oh really? If that is the case, you have confirmed POPLA being truly independent as the myth and untruth that we all know it to be. Why can't POPLA offer a web page with advice to motorists to balance the scales?

I could go on, but the rubbish they spout just makes my heart bleed for them. How many of these parking scammers are losing money to the extent that POPLA appeals are putting them out of business?

Why are they bemoaning mitigation appeals and then turn the discussion around to the minute fraction of appeals that come via forum based legal points that most of us would have no way of knowing about?

If any of the ppc really had the interests of land owners at heart they would allow for certain mitigating factors. They would also target the inconsiderate and the abusers of private parking and not also the unaware, disabled and those that over stay and over spend in shops.

The whole industry seems to be based on a tissue of semi-legitimate interpretations of law, with charges that could be described as illegal. If they were not, surely the judges would side with the PPC in almost every court case. Continuously and knowingly demanding an amount that can not be legally justified under the circumstances is truly vexatious.

:mad:

fisherjim

Good grief doesn't it make your blood boil!
These scamming idiots; con people, bend the truth, impersonate authority, ignore their old boys' club COP's, ignor the law, persecute the old and the disabled, ticket people on their own land, pretend they have not received post, fail to send obligatory paperwork/codes, impose ridiculously inflated charges and then throw their toys out of the pram when they get put in their place.

Their rants are nothing but laughable :rotfl:

Redx

bod1467 wrote: »

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

maybe that is the problem, the fact PP didnt get the job http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/prankster-falls-at-first-hurdle.html

if he had, then they may have a fairer process for all concerned that deals with all the issues instead of the one-sided approach they use to try to maximise their revenue streams at the expense of common sense and the law

clearly because the PPC`s and Popla continually break the EA 2010 , the unfair contracts and terms laws and probably other ones too doesnt help the fact that they also regularly get the no locus standi and not a gpeol losses they suffer yet they think they are lily white and beyond reproach , not in the real world they arent

Parking-Prankster

Redx wrote: »

maybe that is the problem, the fact PP didnt get the job http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/prankster-falls-at-first-hurdle.html

if he had, then they may have a fairer process for all concerned that deals with all the issues instead of the one-sided approach they use to try to maximise their revenue streams at the expense of common sense and the law

clearly because the PPC`s and Popla continually break the EA 2010 , the unfair contracts and terms laws and probably other ones too doesnt help the fact that they also regularly get the no locus standi and not a gpeol losses they suffer yet they think they are lily white and beyond reproach , not in the real world they arent

I have raised 12 issues for the POPLA board's first meeting on 28 Feb. I have more, but that was probably enough for them to be getting on with.


I now wait and see whether any of the issues are acted on.

Stroma

Funny as hell, scammers complaining that their scam doesn't always work I know some of the authors of there are reading this, I'm going to release my mission statement to you.

I intend to continue on until your parking company is liquidated

4consumerrights

There not a happy bunch are they - don't like losing any POPLA appeals by the sound of it!

Kevin of AS in particular is feeling the pinch and his statements contradict what he says regarding good will and mitigation on his website

http://www.as-parking.co.uk/

Note the accusations that motorists were exchanging tickets daily

As clearly stated on the notice and our signage on-site, we do not accept tickets post enforcement. Appeals submitted on this basis are invalid appeals (see right).
Unfortunately it is no difficult task to obtain a ticket or permit post enforcement (from another motorist or a discarded ticket), in fact we witness motorists exchanging tickets on a daily basis; therefore we have to eliminate this loophole that would otherwise exist.

And he moans thus....

The system is a complete joke, even the people who post on the various forums encourage people to appeal to POPLA just for the sake of it. They have no intention of making payment if the appeal is not allowed; they just appeal as they know it will cost the operator £27 + VAT if they do.
......


Its not just the POPLA fee at stake with these so called 'appeals', its also the admin costs for compiling the necessary evidence and responding to the case; so you could double that figure really (costs that I feel the BPA do not appreciate).


If POPLA rejected vexatious appeals at an early stage, at no cost or input required from the operator, it would a) reduce unnecessary costs to the operator b) reduce the running costs of POPLA and c) deter deliberate time wasters who just want the operator to incur costs.

And yet is proud to boast on his website: http://www.as-parking.co.uk/

"Our free of charge package includes Signage, Parking Permits, Patrols and a Call-Out Service."

"We offer a choice of enforcement methods - The issue of Parking Charge Notices (Parking Tickets) or Vehicle Immobilisation (where by-laws are in place)."

"With a comprehensive appeals process we take care of the process from start to finish, leaving you with the peace of mind that your parking facility is taken care of."

"Our goal is to reduce the unauthorised use of your parking faciltiy; it is not to profit from ill informed motorists."

bazster

hoohoo wrote: »

Some Judges have ruled you can offer tower bridge for sale if you are contracting in your own right upon it. (VCS v HMRC). Even though the sale cannot complete.

That judge used as an analogy city traders who "sell short" i.e. who sell stock they don't have. M'learned friend thereby demonstrated a woeful lack of understanding of how that process works: market makers on the Stock Exchange have the privilege of being entitled to borrow stock, so if they are still short when the trade settles they can borrow the stock with which to settle the trade. Accordingly the trader is never in the position of making a deal he knows he can't complete: on the contrary, he is (rightly) certain that he will complete.

Seems to me that if you contract to sell Tower Bridge in the sure and certain knowledge that you can never deliver it then you are committing the tort of deceit, even if you don't take the money and disappear with it.

Furthermore, if you offer something as consideration that the other party already has then it is not good consideration.

Accordingly someone offering as consideration that which is not in his power to deliver (e.g. the right to park) is committing the tort of deceit, and on top of that the other party in most cases already has the thing (the right to park) that is purportedly offered in consideration: his was given it by the lawful occupier of the land, under the terms of an implied licence.

ianders

Someone should start a pot for parking-prankster to take out a billboard that overlooks one of these car parks. Something like "received a parking ticket? Visit this website before you pay" with a big pic of him in his hat