Motorist Should Have Appealed to POPLA: Instead Loses Court Case, £800 Awarded

bargepole

A salutary tale for those who believe that appealing via POPLA is not the way to go:


http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uploads/PDF/Napier-V-Lander-SUMMARY.pdf


The motorist's appeal to Napier was refused, and they gave him a POPLA code, which he didn't use.


Napier then took him to court, where he was unlucky enough to get a Judge who agreed with everything Napier's solicitor said, dismissed the motorist's ill-founded counterclaim, and awarded Napier the full amount of their claim plus over £600 in legal fees due to the motorist's 'unreasonable behaviour' in submitting a weak defence which stood no chance of succeeding.


If he'd just come to this forum, and put in a proper appeal to POPLA, he'd now be £800+ better off.

The_Deep

Mr Lander apparently parked in a P&Dcar park and left without payment. He also tried to go head to head with a company which was set up by landowners who were not satisfied with the cowboy companies then operating on private land, but who owned several car parks themselves. The company is/was connected with a respected entrepreneur and Americas Cup contestant

In my opinion, he was not only acting unreasonaby, but stupidly in ignoring Popla. Unlike landlords ticketd for parking on their own land, he did not hold the moral highground.

He deserved all that he got, even though the Judge may have reached a perverse decision.

Guys_Dad

It is the huge costs that were awarded that is the worrying thing here .

The_Deep

They are not huge costs by any means, Probably less than two hours work for a senor partner.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

They are not huge costs by any means, Probably less than two hours work for a senor partner.

Agreed, but it depends upon if you are collecting or paying !!! And the depth of your pockets too. :rotfl:

henrik777

The costs are wrong. It is not unreasonable to defend a case. Although the penalties argument was lost it was a reasonable argument.

bazster

Does any of this alter the manifest fact that PoPLA is a kangaroo court set up to serve the interests of BPA Ltd. and its members?

bargepole

bazster wrote: »

Does any of this alter the manifest fact that PoPLA is a kangaroo court set up to serve the interests of BPA Ltd. and its members?

No, it doesn't.


But to refuse to engage with it on a point of principle, and risk an outcome like the one above, when he could have almost certainly won at POPLA with the 'not a GPEOL' argument, would seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.


While the POPLA assessors are refusing to accept the ridiculous calculations of 'loss' put forward by most BPA members, it surely makes sense for motorists to take advantage of that fact, and kill off any possibility of going to court.


If that situation changes at some point in the future, then the advice may need to change.

The_Deep

But go to court, (or rather threaten to), if it is a matter of principal, such as being accused of trespassing on your own property, and you wish to knock the matter on the head, or get a PPC off your land.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

But go to court, (or rather threaten to), if it is a matter of principal, such as being accused of trespassing on your own property, and you wish to knock the matter on the head, or get a PPC off your land.

On a repetitive situation such as PPCs invading private dwelling areas where POPLA are notoriously supportive of PPCs right to issue charges to leaseholders parking in their own spaces, I agree that getting a result in court is often necessary.

bazster

bargepole wrote: »

While the POPLA assessors are refusing to accept the ridiculous calculations of 'loss' put forward by most BPA members, it surely makes sense for motorists to take advantage of that fact, and kill off any possibility of going to court.

But they're not are they? Some utterly daft GPEOL's are now being accepted by PoPLA. We had one here the other day: the appellant succeeded against Highview because the assessor found there was no evidence to support Highview's supposed initial loss, but the assessor expressly stated that the GPEOL was otherwise OK. An OK GPEOL from Highview for God's sake!

PoPLA is starting to fly in the face of reason, the law and it's own lead assessor's guidance. This must be pressure from BPA Ltd., and guaranteed wins at PoPLA may soon be a thing of the past. And if PE wins the Beavis appeal there will not be any point in appealing to PoPLA at all.

I rarely advise people to appeal to PoPLA, and I rarely advise them not to, people can make their own minds up, but what I do object to is people being browbeaten into appealing to PoPLA without being given all the facts.

And one fact is that if everyone ignored them all the PPC's would be out of business within a week.