12 guinee pigs required

salmosalaris

And please can we use the attributive adjective "their" and not "there" correctly .
That's also better

ManxRed

There's nothing to stop them issuing codes, and then having the appeals stayed. Or manipulating digits 4,5, and 6 so the code expires in two or three months.

But not issuing a code is a breach of the CoP.

enfield_freddy

NO , go and read another forum if you are insistent on total correctness of vocabulary.


have a not nice day

enfield_freddy

ManxRed wrote: »

There's nothing to stop them issuing codes, and then having the appeals stayed. Or manipulating digits 4,5, and 6 so the code expires in two or three months.

But not issuing a code is a breach of the CoP.

yup , that's what they are doing at the moment with or without the BPA blessing.


there is a clause in the BPA about giving false or short dated codes as well


edit:


same offence


4.16
Persistent [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]failure to abide by the processes and requirements of POPLA [/FONT][/FONT]including non-provision of a valid POPLA Code.

HO87

It would be safe to assume that POPLA is doing this with the agreement - perhaps even at the direction of - the BPA. The problem is - as has been repeatedly pointed out - the BPA write the COP, polices it and acts judge and jury. On that basis, apparent/technical breach of the COP or not, you can bet your bottom dollar that absolutely nothing will be done about it.

That view has nothing to do with being defeatist or anything else. It is simply a case of understanding which battles to fight. This is not one of them. Leastways, not at the moment.

enfield_freddy

ok , we sit back and get stuffed by a system set up by the government to protect us


on second thoughts , sounds about right

Herzlos

I disagree, whilst it might not change things this is certainly something that people should kick up a stink about with complaints to the BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards and the retailer. Even if ignored there's still a cost to these companies in handling them.

Staffs_Flyer

What's the current recommended course of action if PE refuse to issue a POPLA code with an appeal rejection? Apart from a complaint to BPA and DVLA, should PE be pushed to issue a code?

What if they still refuse? What's the next stage as obviously a POPLA appeal can not be started without the code? I assume a code will be issued later and POPLA will accept it???

SF

enfield_freddy

as it stands they can sit tight for upto 6 yrs before the court system refuses it , even tho the BPA state that bpa popla code must be given by return.


one rule for PE , one for every other PPC


summots wrong

Herzlos

Staffs_Flyer wrote: »

What's the current recommended course of action if PE refuse to issue a POPLA code with an appeal rejection? Apart from a complaint to BPA and DVLA, should PE be pushed to issue a code?

What if they still refuse? What's the next stage as obviously a POPLA appeal can not be started without the code? I assume a code will be issued later and POPLA will accept it???

SF

Ideally they'd confirm in writing that they were refusing to issue a POPLA code, so you can inform them you regard the issue concluded and can refer to it should it be taken to court later. But still complain to BPA and DVLA about the breach.

Presumably they want to hold the POPLA appeals because if the Beavis case is successful they just need to claim commercial justification (it seems the BPA guidelines have already changed to allow it).