We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA appeal REFUSED!!!!
Comments
-
As expected, POPLA lead assessor Henry Greenslade has replied, saying that he finds no issue with the assessor and the appeal refusal stands. Does this count as the first loss at POPLA?0
-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5104152
That's the new thread that was created ... might be worth a PM to Crabman to get these threads merged.0 -
-
From what I can gather POPLA and the GPEOL side of things may need careful handling where the car park is a pay and display oneFrom the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
I can see the Adjudicator's point. If you use P&D facilities without paying, then, unless you can prove that you intended to pay, then you are guilty of theft, just as much as were you to drive away without paying for petrol.
In Dickens's time people were transported for less, why do people think that car parks are fair game?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Irrespective of Henry's stupid review ... the original assessment was STILL wrong. The vast majority of the GPEOL justification related to POPLA, and can not be justifiably included by any person with a reasonable level of intelligence.0
-
If you use P&D facilities without paying, then, unless you can prove that you intended to pay, then you are guilty of theft, just as much as were you to drive away without paying for petrol.
Once again, you have no clue.
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;"
What property has been appropriated?One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0 -
No-one in their right mind would believe that the loss of a pound remotely justifies an escalation to £100. Had it not been a new assessor this would not have happened.0
-
Once again, you have no clue. ... What property has been appropriated?
None dear boy, but read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services
Before you post next time, might I suggest that you do a modicum of research to avoid making a cake of yourself.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Ryan_Bryan wrote: »No-one in their right mind would believe that the loss of a pound remotely justifies an escalation to £100. Had it not been a new assessor this would not have happened.
It does not, but it kills stone dead any argument that there is no initial loss. As a result of the bilking the PPC incurred costs, the Adjudicator happened to believe that the costs which they were claiming were justified. Whether she was right or not is another matter.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards