POPLA: Strategy and Analysis

Aaron_Aadvark

POPLA: Strategy and Analysis

This thread is meant to allow discussion of POPLA trends, results and strategies, thus keeping the 'POPLA results' thread just for results.

Aaron_Aadvark

To start the thread:

During the last few weeks, the PPCs seem to have given up submitting evidence to POPLA. Have they decided that it's not worth the bother? Or is there a rift between the PPCs and the BPA Ltd.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Aaron_Aadvark wrote: »

To start the thread:

During the last few weeks, the PPCs seem to have given up submitting evidence to POPLA. Have they decided that it's not worth the bother? Or is there a rift between the PPCs and the BPA Ltd.

It is odd that the PPCs thick that the process is inequitable when under consumer law the system is inherently biased to the companies.

For example, a simple complaint of £100 is too much sent to POPLA should trigger the service to invoke the appropriate tests of gpeol without the consumer nesting to explicitly state this. It should be automatic that a PPC should have to prove standing.

Such things should be trivial. If the PPCs can't or won't then it can be assumed that they know they are acting unfairly and OFT should intervene or behalf.

Myself, if these charge are sensible, then the one in lifetime £10 charge wouldn't be worth wrong about. Trying to gouge £100 for nothing is taking the P's and should be stamped out.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

i think personally that companies like Parking Eye have done a cost benefit analysis of this, its not worth wasting their staff time (which obviously costs money) on something they know they are going to loose, it maybe costs more in staff hours then the cost of the Popla Appeal.

A lot of companies are not happy with the BPA over Popla

Coupon-mad

We've read that only 1 or 2% of cases even go to POPLA which is a crying shame and shows why the PPCs don't care. But we've also discussed somewhere that victims should complain every time to the BPA and DVLA if a PPC is just dropping cases when sussed. It shows they have no GPEOL and no chance in Hell so why are they allowed to continue to get data then, DVLA?

spikyone

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We've read that only 1 or 2% of cases even go to POPLA which is a crying shame and shows why the PPCs don't care. But we've also discussed somewhere that victims should complain every time to the BPA and DVLA if a PPC is just dropping cases when sussed. It shows they have no GPEOL and no chance in Hell so why are they allowed to continue to get data then, DVLA?

Alternatively, the victim could make it clear in their 'appeal' to the PPC that if it is rejected but then dropped without the PPC providing evidence to POPLA, the PPC will be invoiced for the time said victim has spent preparing their defence. I reckon around £27-£32 is a reasonable amount...

peter_the_piper

I have doubts that the ppc's even make it clear that an appeal is allowed/possible. I've seen it in the very, very small print at the bottom and comments about having to pay in big red letters in the middle of the ticket.

Computersaysno

POPLA is a red herring for everyone.


Whilst we all feel great about helping a handful of people win under GPEOL at POPLA, the PPCs are busy issuing the 99% of tickets that don't make it to POPLA.


POPLA was a necessary evil for them under POFA to gain credibility and 'RK-liability'.


Whilst POPLA does indeed rule against the PPCs on gpeol, remember that POPLA will not even consider an appeal on 'mitigating circumstances'...which in reality means that the really vulnerable people are still being forced to pay the scammers.


Consider also that everyone who is appealing to POPLA under GPEOL would have been ignoring the PPC prior to Oct 2012. As such POPLA hasn't really reduced the income of the PPCs very much at all.

da_rule

It's a shame more people aren't aware of POPLA really and how easy it actually is to win an appeal. Although I imagine that if more people started to use it and it started to cost the parking companies money they would be more likely to show up and actually provide evidence. It's a double edge sword, if more people use it successfully it might lead to it being harder to win.

People who do have general mitigation, especially those such as protected characteristics under various discrimination laws, will always be able to rely on the courts, but this is always risky, and can be quite stressful. If the POFA really wanted to protect freedom then it should have forced every parking company to include a leaflet in with their PCN which sets out all of the available options, this could have been written by an impartial group, such as the Citizens Advice Bureau.

4consumerrights

Private parking companies have been in existence far longer than POPLA which by comparison is still in its infancy. The fact that it is estimated that only 1.1% of parking charges are currently using this appeals process means that the wider general public is missing out.

The problem with these parking charges are the similarities with PENALTY charges issued by councils and the police. This is carefully contrived eg in notices and wording using the same initials and packaging - sends subliminal messages having a pyschological impact which results in many simply paying up.

When keeper liability was introduced a condition was that operators had an "independent" appeals process - yet there was very little publicity about this. IMO there will be a gradual increasing awareness regarding this - via publicity and word of mouth. There have already been articles recently in newspapers and a couple of radio shows (Parking Prankster spoke on this - and featured in the Cornish Guardian).

With regards to the recent increase in operators bottling out - AFAIK this first appeared in December with increasing numbers since.

Forum aided appeals are not doubt a concern to PPCs which is why they are having coaching lessons in this - BPA held an enforcement meeting for their members recently and there is another workshop on 5th March for helping with POPLA - so will be interesting to see after this date the bottle rate number.

Guys_Dad

Schlindler's list has just been on the TV. In the overall scheme of things, the number of people he was able to save was miniscule, but the ones he helped were immensely grateful and we celebrate his success.

So even though we may only be able to help relatively few people - although the number of successes is on a dramatic upward curve - I see no reason to be pessimistic and here's to future success.