IPC - POPLA Clarification

Dublindel

I'm probably having a stupid moment here but correct me where I go wrong

1. Ppc's are members of a trade body (BPA) and as such have no DIRECT affiliation with POPLA excepting the requibehalf. to use them for appeals by motorists. POPLA is endorced by the DoT and the DVLA and follows POFA 2012 rules which require GPEOL. The BPA is attempting to ignore POFA on GPEOL and use commercial necessity instead although this is not enshrined in law, just a PE Mickey Mouse case.

2. Ppc's are not members of the BPA but have joined directly to their own appeal board as MEMBERS paying a subscription I assume. They either have no trade body or the IPC acts on their behalf.
Bias exists because the IPC is run by the directors of Gladstones who have a vested interest in the welfare of their members, they also act under Gladstones as debt collectors. They do not base appeals on GPEOL as required by POFA 2012 and they withold names of assessors who I can only assume are Gladstone employees. I am not aware that the IPC has been endorced by the DoT or how it has been endorced by the DVLA, especially without an independent trade body.

As Michael McIntyre said about the Geordie who came over to him and said. .. is yous lookin at uss.... how many mistakes can you make in one sentence. Let me know. Because this whole thing stinks

Fruitcake

Dublindel wrote: »

I'm probably having a stupid moment here but correct me where I go wrong

1. Ppc's are members of a trade body (BPA) and as such have no DIRECT affiliation with POPLA excepting the requibehalf. to use them for appeals by motorists. POPLA is endorced by the DoT and the DVLA and follows POFA 2012 rules which require GPEOL. The BPA is attempting to ignore POFA on GPEOL and use commercial necessity instead although this is not enshrined in law, just a PE Mickey Mouse case.

2. Ppc's are not members of the BPA but have joined directly to their own appeal board as MEMBERS paying a subscription I assume. They either have no trade body or the IPC acts on their behalf.
Bias exists because the IPC is run by the directors of Gladstones who have a vested interest in the welfare of their members, they also act under Gladstones as debt collectors. They do not base appeals on GPEOL as required by POFA 2012 and they withold names of assessors who I can only assume are Gladstone employees. I am not aware that the IPC has been endorced by the DoT or how it has been endorced by the DVLA, especially without an independent trade body.

As Michael McIntyre said about the Geordie who came over to him and said. .. is yous lookin at uss.... how many mistakes can you make in one sentence. Let me know. Because this whole thing stinks

That's ther main gist of things as far as I can work out, but BPA members don't stick to the BPA CoP so they are not really much cop. PoPLA does seem to be fairly fair although some assesors tend to get things wrong even when No GPEOL has been used as an appeal point. This has happened a couple of times resulting in complaints to the lead assesor and in somne case overturning a lost appeal.

IAS/IPC appeals system is a kangaroo court and you are more likely to beat them in real court than by using their unfit for purpose appeals process.

Guys_Dad

Slight correction. IAS/IPC do accept GPEOL in some cases but advise their PPCs to use wording that makes the parking a contractual one. see page 37 here http://media.wix.com/ugd/bd9e08_b57f0768f7d9482db5b3c2de70e9f4b2.pdf

You may provide that if motorists wish to park other than in accordance with your normal conditions then they agree to pay a larger sum of money than the normal tariff. The signs should then make it clear that motorists are entering into an agreement to either pay the normal tariff and park in accordance with reasonable conditions or park otherwise than in accordance with your conditions
and pay a higher sum. In this case then the motorist has entered into a contract to pay the higher fee.

Alternatively, you may make it a requirement that the motorist only use the land in accordance with your terms and conditions. You may make it clear on the signage that if the terms and conditions of the parking are complied with then they are free to pay the normal tariff for parking (if one applies).
However, if the motorist uses the land other than in accordance with the terms and conditions then they agree to pay a fixed fee by way of damages to the operator. This is based on a genuine preestimate of loss that flows from the breach of contract by acting otherwise than in accordance with
the terms of the agreement the motorist entered into when deciding to park.

Dublindel

Would you describe IPC as both a trade body as it has members, and an 'independent' appeal service? If so, why can't the BPA discard POPLA and do exactly the same. So many loose ends.

TDA

Dublindel wrote: »

I'm probably having a stupid moment here but correct me where I go wrong

1. Ppc's are members of a trade body (BPA) and as such have no DIRECT affiliation with POPLA excepting the requibehalf. to use them for appeals by motorists. POPLA is endorced by the DoT and the DVLA and follows POFA 2012 rules which require GPEOL. The BPA is attempting to ignore POFA on GPEOL and use commercial necessity instead although this is not enshrined in law, just a PE Mickey Mouse case.

2. Ppc's are not members of the BPA but have joined directly to their own appeal board as MEMBERS paying a subscription I assume. They either have no trade body or the IPC acts on their behalf.
Bias exists because the IPC is run by the directors of Gladstones who have a vested interest in the welfare of their members, they also act under Gladstones as debt collectors. They do not base appeals on GPEOL as required by POFA 2012 and they withold names of assessors who I can only assume are Gladstone employees. I am not aware that the IPC has been endorced by the DoT or how it has been endorced by the DVLA, especially without an independent trade body.

As Michael McIntyre said about the Geordie who came over to him and said. .. is yous lookin at uss.... how many mistakes can you make in one sentence. Let me know. Because this whole thing stinks

First point I would make is that GPEOL is not a 'requirement' of POFA 2012 as such. Nowhere in that Act (off the top of my head) does it make any reference to GPEOL. It is a requirement that a contractual term for liquidated damages needs to satisfy in order to be enforceable in contract law. However, there have been recent developments, mainly over the last decade, in the law relating to whether the term is 'commercially justifiable'. We shall see come the Beavis appeal whether this applies to private parking.

IPC members would still have to operate under the principles of contract in any court action, and they certainly still try to use POFA!

Dublindel wrote:

Would you describe IPC as both a trade body as it has members, and an 'independent' appeal service? If so, why can't the BPA discard POPLA and do exactly the same. So many loose ends.

If the BPA 'discarded' POPLA they would likely very quickly find the government repealing Sch 4 of POFA 2012 as it was agreed on the condition that POPLA, as an indepedent body, be set up.

Fruitcake, until the Beavis case is heard it is not as simple as stating that POPLA have got the decisions where they have ruled in the PPC's favour on a GPEOL appeal 'wrong' - if the decision goes the way of the PPCs all POPLA rulings that the charge was not commercially justifiable would in fact be wrong. No one 'knows' what the law is regarding this area because there is no binding precedent on the topic.

When the CA makes a ruling it is stating, in theory, what the law has always been, not what they have now decided it shall be. On the other hand if the Beavis case goes the way we would hope, then all such decisions will be fully vindicated.