Is POPLA currently fit for purpose? your opinions please

halibut2209

Peel Centre, Stockport would seem to be the first choice!

The_Slithy_Tove

Oops. Foot in mouth. Graham R from CP PLus says

Of course the elephant in the room regarding enforcement is deterrent; without an effective deterrent many motorists will ignore the rules and this goes for on-street as well as off-street.

So he has admitted that their charges are a deterrent for breaking the rules (rather than anyone's losses). Even if they were claiming it's a contractural charge, admitting it is set at a level to be a deterrent means it immediately falls as an Unfair Contract Term. Someone screenshot that admission!

trisontana

As for complaining about having to pay all those costs for running the business, if they don't want to pay those costs, then they should never have set the business up in the first place,

Welsh_Exile

Trebor16 wrote: »

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.

Didn't you know that if you type "FACT" in block capitals it automatically makes a statement true? :rotfl:

Their use of the words "vexatious" and "spurious" are most amusing; I do not think those words mean what they think they mean.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Thread captured and filed as evidence.

Fundamentally they don't understand the legal basis for their business.

What ultimately is being revealed is that most firms expect to operate on a "Rainmaker" premise, as in the Tom Cruise film where they discover the insurance company has a process for denying any claim even if it was legitimate. I think this lack of reasonableness is a major weakness and if I can get trading standards to grasp that what they are seeing is not a fair process but a system designed to look fair while scamming motorists then there is a chance to hit back hard. You have to go through the process to see how it works. In my case you would have to ask why a reputable company would want to upset a customer who pays hundreds of pounds over a trivial parking disagreement? I'm amazed that Virgin are content not to intervene which means that they are content to be part of the scam.

The_Slithy_Tove

trisontana wrote: »

As for complaining about having to pay all those costs for running the business, if they don't want to pay those costs, then they should never have set the business up in the first place,

Here's an idea. I got it from the way most service companies cover their costs/make money. That is to charge their customers (e.g. supermarkets, retail parks, etc.) a fee for providing the service (parking management, where "management" means what it says, not "ensuring that users break the rules in order for us to fine them"). Novel, eh?

trisontana

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

Didn't you know that if you type "FACT" in block capitals it automatically makes a statement true? :rotfl:

Their use of the words "vexatious" and "spurious" are most amusing; I do not think those words mean what they think they mean.

On planet PPC those words refer to those who stand up to the parking companies and refuse to just roll over and pay. On top of that, the PPCs don't seem to like motorists seeking advice on forums such as this. They would rather a motorist just went to court ill-prepared facing a solicitor employed by the parking company.

Then you have to ask yourself, if PPCs are so sure that they are in right why do they lose so often at POPLA and at court?

Welsh_Exile

trisontana wrote: »

On planet PPC those words refer to those who stand up to the parking companies and refuse to just roll over and pay. On top of that, the PPCs don't seem to like motorists seeking advice on forums such as this. They would rather a motorist just went to court ill-prepared facing a solicitor employed by the parking company.

Then you have to ask yourself, if PPCs are so sure that they are in right why do they lose so often at POPLA and at court?

I hope that one day soon a parking company will find out what the word "vexatious" as in "vexatious litigant" actually does mean - that would be deliciously ironic.

Stroma

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

I hope that one day soon a parking company will find out what the word "vexatious" as in "vexatious litigant" actually does mean - that would be deliciously ironic.

Yes and if it happens to parking eye first I'll be a happy man

trubster

4consumerrights wrote: »

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



And he moans thus....



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

But you missed the best bit, on the same website

SPECIAL OFFER!

For a limited period we are offering 'Pay & Display' machines to the right car park/s FREE OF CHARGE!.!

Please contact us to arrange a site visit.

Our revenue comes from the enforcement action we take on motorists who either fail to pay for their parking or park in breach of the site specific terms & conditions of use.

We take care of the maintenace of the machine, the replenishment of tickets and enforcement; your only responsibiliy is to collect the cash from the machine

We can even arrange cash collection and banking if required (a charge for this service applies).

For car parks where it is not commercially viable for us to supply the equipment free of charge - purchase, lease or profit share options are available.

Oooooops