POPLA: Strategy and Analysis

ampersand

...and that same Mr N Lester is a star of last Friday's bunfight:

http://www.britishparkingawards.co.uk/2014/shortlist.php

bazster

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I sent an email over the weekend asking what the function of the tick boxes were and if it was sufficient to tick the overcharge box to trigger the need to prove gpeol without the appellant having to express this in terms of contract law which is unreasonable to expect from a member of the public.

Might be time for another letter to my MP.

Good luck with that query, sadly I imagine you'll get flannel in response.

My poor MP is about to get another wodge of moans from me. I've been storing them up pending the court hearing in Cambridge on Friday, in case it hands me more good ammo.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

bazster wrote: »

Good luck with that query, sadly I imagine you'll get flannel in response.

My poor MP is about to get another wodge of moans from me. I've been storing them up pending the court hearing in Cambridge on Friday, in case it hands me more good ammo.

I was just a coincidence but I'm guessing some reading of blogs and forums will make them assume I am in cahoots rather than independently hassling all and sundry.

I'm pretty sure that a judge in the small claims court would view it as their role to listen to the plain English from a member of the public and apply the basics of applicable law without the need for a member of the public to have researched this and expressed their complaint in such a way. POPLA are hiding behind a very dubious strict definition of their own choosing in suggesting that they are compelled only to consider the appellant's case as it is presented, and they cannot make inferences when people say things like the charge is excessive for a 30 minute overstay in a free car park.

bazster

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I was just a coincidence but I'm guessing some reading of blood and forms will make them assume I am in cahoots rather than independently hassling all and sundry.

I'm pretty sure that a judge in the small claims court would view it as their role to listen to the plain English from a member of the public and apply the basics of applicable law without the need for a member of the public to have researched this and expressed their complaint in such a way. POPLA are hiding behind a very dubious strict definition of their own choosing in suggesting that they are compelled only to consider the appellant's case as it is presented, and they cannot make inferences when people say things like the charge is excessive for a 30 minute overstay in a free car park.

I couldn't agree more. I'm sure many judges would listen to an unqualified defendant stating that a charge is unjustified and would apply the relevant law without further prompting and without expecting the defendant to produce the magic incantation "genuine pre-estimate of loss". PoPLA claims to be concerned only with applying the law. What that means in reality is that it is concerned only with applying the law in a twisted and narrow way which most favours its paymasters.

HO87

The POPLA website is hardly very informative and there will be many, many people who will be discouraged by the fact that mitigation will not be considered and their appeals must fall into one of four criteria. That restriction was not accidental.

Stroma

It's not accidental as the BPA came up with those appeal points, and it's the BPA exerting pressure on popla to not change anything. The secret coaching sessions, the secret meetings of the parking industry leading figures with popla, is only for one thing.

The fact that nothing is done despite complaints just shows nepotism in the parking family of scammers. Popla is not fit for purpose, the people in charge of it are members of the bpa, they win awards at parking events, and cannot be counted as independent.

MothballsWallet

From what Stroma's just said, it sounds like POPLA just want to cosy up with the PPCs, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?

An appeals adjudicator is supposed to be independent of both sides.

Also, if they're willing to throw out any appeal that uses something like, say the Equality Act 2010, what does that say about them?

The Equality Act is an Act of Parliament, a Statutory Instrument, and provides legally-defined reasonable adjustments that have to be made. Why haven't the disabled rights groups taken POPLA to court yet for this? Or are POPLA and the PPCs making donations to them so they keep quiet?

Frannybobs

In my appeal against CEL they have submitted 19 pages of "evidence" and stated that they don't need to prove GPEOL but if they did then quoted a breakdown including running costs etc which shouldn't stand. CEL seem to be trying to stand up for themselves. I don't know if we'll win but I wasn't prepared to go down without a fight after finding this forum. I'd rather pay the extra £40 and cause them hassle and cost as well.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4890460

But sadly it means CEL aren't giving up without a fight unlike others you seem to be seeing here at POPLA.

I have been telling everyone I know about unfair parking charges and fight them if you get them and would help anyone else by directing them here as although I understand more, not completely legally enough to word anything. Sad to read that only 1-2% appeal, no wonder they don't care if they don't comply with PoFA or whether their charges are proportionate.

Annie1960

The bottom line is that the PPCs do not have a legitimate business model. They issue PCNs that have no standing whatsoever. If you root around on the POPLA website you can see that POPLA have spelled out to PPCs exactly what heads can be included in GPEOL, but the PPCs seem to be ignoring this, hence they lose at POPLA. If they followed the advice, PPCs would win, but then again if they followed the advice they would not be able to make the total add up to £90.

I personally thought that the content and tone of the rejection letter I got from UKPC was threatening, as well as being a load of nonsense. But, they have no other option that to extort money from people as they do not have a genuine business model. It is a vicious circle that will go on indefinitely, as long as people keep paying the PCNs.