Parking Prankster posts on POPLA Service Provision

Fergie76

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I think, on balance, an appeal service that is gererous in its GPEOL appeals is better than nothing other than courts, bearing in mind an unfavourable POPLA result can always go to court.

I think that 'generous' is a poor word choice there. What other option do they than to reject GPEOL? It's not like they are giving the driver/keeper the benefit of the doubt in a 50/50 case.

Stroma

Except Guy that nobody will fund publicity of this, the unfairness of popla being only in the bracket of people with an internet connection, and that there is no instructions on even how to appeal.

I'll give you this scenario for you. I am a 60 year old man with no internet, and friends who have no knowledge of this. A ticket is issued, you think it's unfair and want to appeal it, you do that on mitigating circumstances as you know no different, it's rejected and they say you can use popla to appeal it further. They give a popla number and say appeal online.

Now can you see the problem here? The parking company only says popla is an independent appeals service (which it ain't ) , they give no information on what it is, and you have no idea. Sometimes they don't even give an option of that and ask you for more info and still reject.

For popla to work it should be explained that mitigation doesn't work , it should say what appeals are used most often, and that should be provided with a fact sheet on each appeal rejection, that should be written by someone like Martin Cutts so it's in plain English .

For me it's a waste of time at the moment and it will probably be better if just told people to ignore the whole scam, but that would only work if everyone ignored them unless a claim was issued. The whole scam would collapse around them.

Guys_Dad

Fergie76 wrote: »

I think that 'generous' is a poor word choice there. What other option do they than to reject GPEOL? It's not like they are giving the driver/keeper the benefit of the doubt in a 50/50 case.

Well, they could adopt the Maloney view couldn't they?

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

Except Guy that nobody will fund publicity of this, the unfairness of popla being only in the bracket of people with an internet connection, and that there is no instructions on even how to appeal.

I'll give you this scenario for you. I am a 60 year old man with no internet, and friends who have no knowledge of this. A ticket is issued, you think it's unfair and want to appeal it, you do that on mitigating circumstances as you know no different, it's rejected and they say you can use popla to appeal it further. They give a popla number and say appeal online.

Now can you see the problem here? The parking company only says popla is an independent appeals service (which it ain't ) , they give no information on what it is, and you have no idea. Sometimes they don't even give an option of that and ask you for more info and still reject.

For popla to work it should be explained that mitigation doesn't work , it should say what appeals are used most often, and that should be provided with a fact sheet on each appeal rejection, that should be written by someone like Martin Cutts so it's in plain English .

For me it's a waste of time at the moment and it will probably be better if just told people to ignore the whole scam, but that would only work if everyone ignored them unless a claim was issued. The whole scam would collapse around them.

PE have shown what happens if you ignore the scam and the court cost and success rate is not favourable.

The regulars here all want the present system to change - no argument. Fingers are crossed for the Beavis CoA.

But in the meantime, we have a vehicle that delivers for us. You only have to look at the increase in business that the forum is doing and every person we help will undoubtedly be telling friends and family of their success and will be offering their newly gaines expertise to help others or point them here.

Mass ignoring just won't work - it will only swell the coffers of the PPCs or get drivers ccjs.

Legislation or some favourable court precedents are he answer.

However, back to the point, London councils are only likely to throw a wobbly if it is costing them.

Stroma

If 750k people a year ignored parking eye , then the whole thing collapses, they cannot take that number of people to court. If as extension of that 2.2m ignored all parking companies, they then don't have a business model that works. Having a business that forces payment through the courts is not a viable model. The sooner district judges wake up to this and other companies the better.

Guys_Dad

I take that point about a business that enforces payment through the court is not viable.

But getting 750,000 people to join the campaign isn't going to happen, is it?

Half_way

One of the problems is POPLAs refusal to take into account mitigating circumstances regardless of what they may be.
The whole thing is a charade designed by the BPA limited to give the parking industry an impression of respectability that is a parking industry that relies on scare tactics mis information, lies and so on in order to intimidate and bully people into parting with their cash.

The whole thing stinks, from the BPA IAS or what ever right to the DVLA bending over backwards to accommodate these [edit]bags.
the only way to put a stop to this would be for the DVLA to put a stop to giving out RK data on a plate, if someone needs RK data the only way to get it should be via a paper hand filled out form followed by having to attend a government office ( ie registry office) to check that you have a valid reason, and then to be given the information upon payment of an admin fee.


As for the Beavis case and commercially justified penalties, while this forum deals with parking issues it could have a much wider impact, go over your data allowance on a mobile phone? that will be a £80 penalty, spill your drink on a tablecloth in a restaurant - youve just got a laundry penalty.

bazster

Umkomaas wrote: »

I read that as a speculative assessment by PP, rather than anything 'official' from London Councils or Nick Lester.

Do you read it somewhat differently bazster? Maybe I am 'missing' something.

No, I sort of read it the same. Definitely not official, but on the other hand it struck me as a little stronger than "speculative" - as though PP has a little birdy whispering in his ear.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I think, on balance, an appeal service that is gererous in its GPEOL appeals is better than nothing other than courts, bearing in mind an unfavourable POPLA result can always go to court.

The advantage of having no appeals service is that the government would have no choice but to use the powers it has reserved for itself to suspend keeper liability.

Stroma

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I take that point about a business that enforces payment through the court is not viable.

But getting 750,000 people to join the campaign isn't going to happen, is it?

Well if a national media campaign was put into place by someone on here who just won the euro millions it may happen lol. The point though is that what is most feared by parking companies, people ignoring their scam completely.

Even if you have a default claim against you that has gone beyond the 28 days, not one parking company I've heard of has paid the circa £100 to enforce this, some people don't care about CCJs , some will not even know. If you are the 60 year old chap in my scenario you are not likely to go for credit so having a CCJ will not matter to you.