Frustrated with popla

lcc86

Thank you all for the helpful information. I have only had a chance to glance through the links but will read through it all properly and then go from there. Thanks again, I'll update as soon as I can!

lcc86

Just wanted to say thanks again to everybody for their help, I have now had the chance to read through the thread which was linked in a previous comment - a very interesting read and boy am I glad I'm not alone in this fiasco!!

I have emailed ISPA and copied in Parking Prankster, I'll see what comes of it.

Now that I have a little more time to post a more thorough reply, I'll tell you exactly what reasoning WH gave me:

"1. The appellant has requested evidence that PTL had the right to operate on this land. We are in receipt of sufficient evidence..." I would disagree with this as I know where the land boundary is in relation to where I was parked!! Equally, they've not provided me with the chance to view said evidence (I believe that's an issue raised on the other thread as well) so how do I know what that evidence is or whether it even exists?! If they have evidence they can manage the land I was on, why don't they do it on a daily basis as there are cars there daily?! If they have evidence they can manage the land I was on, and I have evidence to the contrary, who is right? I digress...

"2. The appellant has stated that they had a legal right to park in the car park under their lease. The signage states a permit must be displayed at all times. As the appellant did not display a permit... blah blah blah..." Now this is where I really get angry!! I did not say such a thing. What I said was I had a right to park in the land ADJACENT TO the car park, which is where I was parked!! Therefore this entire point is irrelevant!!

Anyway, as and when I hear anything further I'll update the forum, I know there are several interested folk in what happens with WH.

beamerguy

The plot thickens into the viability of Wright Hassall.

This must be the tip of the iceberg

The ISPA and BPA should strip Wright Hassall of the "POPLA" brand before this hits the press big time

lcc86

Can I ask whether it makes a difference that POPLA never told me this was being passed to WH? I knew the Beavis rule was happening but never knew that WH were appointed until I received the letter. I'll be honest, I kind of left the ball in their court to contact me so didn't keep up to speed with things. Should I have been informed that WH were going to be dealing with my appeal?

Redx

nothing to do with popla

popla is funded by the BPA and last year was London Councils but then the BPA engaged the Ombudsman Service instead , just before the Beavis court case

many old popla cases were stayed pending Beavis, so the BPA had to try and sort something out, this has been handed to WH by the BPA, hence all the complaints

all well documented on this forum, plus on pepipoo forum, plus parking pranksters blogs

so blame the BPA

lcc86

Just to update, I had a response from Nicola Mullany at ISPA, she's asked me to forward her my decision letter from WH and will get one of her assessors to look into it within 8-12 weeks.

pappa_golf

will get one of her assessors to look into it within 8-12 weeks.




or in a timely manner that you forget about

lcc86

Perhaps my choice of wording was not the best there but you get the gist.