POPLA appeal REFUSED!!!!

halibut2209

The_Deep wrote: »

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.

My apologies, I didn't realise you were talking about American Law...

esmerobbo

The_Deep wrote: »

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?

However even in Dickensian England you went before a beak or a Judge before you were penalised.

trisontana

In other words, the PPC is acting as a vigilante and is acting as a judge and jury. That's not how English law works, that's why we have courts. One private citizen cannot punish another citizen.

Umkomaas

esmerobbo wrote: »

However even in Dickensian England you went before a beak or a Judge before you were penalised.

Agree, not just some kangaroo court - oh, just a minute!

bazster

In his enthusiasm to label people as thieves The Deep seems to overlook that the commission of a crime usually entails intent. I was once in party of three that walked out of a restaurant without paying, because each of us was under the impression that another member of the party had paid. Did I intend to pay? No, because I thought someone else was doing so. Did I intend to steal? Certainly not, and in fact it was me who went back and paid when the error was realised, much to the proprietor's surprise.

So does that make me guilty of an offence? No of course not, the three of us were simply guilty of inattention. The same is true of people who don't pay in a P&D car park for reasons such as not realising it was a P&D car park, getting distracted and forgetting to pay, or whatever.

This doesn't mean that the landowner can't take steps to recover his loss (just as the restaurateur could have done if we hadn't realised our error), but it does show (IMO) that it's a bad idea to bandy accusations of theft unless you have examined the matter in a court of law and come to a conclusion, based on the evidence, as to the person's intentions.

Coupon-mad

gavcradd wrote: »

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?

Didn't new cruiser beat you to it (already linked for you in post #18 so you can both compare notes when ignoring the debt collector drivel now)? Both were 'Amy decisions'.