Free the 4000

Edna_Basher

Hi Umkomaas

Your link doesn't work because MSE thinks there's a space between "adjo" and "urned" in the address. It looks like MSE can't cope with a web address that spills over onto a second line.

This link to the BPA website works.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/bpa-acts-to-reconsider-popla-appeals-following-independent-review

From there, you're just a click away from the PDF copy of Mr. Troy's letter.

ISPA have advised me that the alternative provider appointed by the BPA is a firm of solicitors; however, the BPA have not yet revealed this firm's identity.

It should really be up to each appellant as to whether or not they also agree to appoint this alternative provider. Having been promised POPLA, they should be reasonably entitled to insist upon POPLA if they so wish - especially if the firm of solicitors turns out to be Gladstones!

Coupon-mad

Oh dear, a firm of solicitors will not have the same mindset as Chris Adamson & co at 'old POPLA' who really did get it as regards the scam of private parking tickets.

hoohoo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Oh dear, a firm of solicitors will not have the same mindset as Chris Adamson & co at 'old POPLA' who really did get it as regards the scam of private parking tickets.

Do we know who will be doing these yet?

Umkomaas

Hi Umkomaas

Your link doesn't work because MSE thinks there's a space between "adjo" and "urned" in the address. It looks like MSE can't cope with a web address that spills over onto a second line.

Thanks EB - I've tried to tidy the link up, so it works - to a degree (now the same link as yours). There's a further link in the BPA trailer to the event that gets through to the letter.

nigelbb

Edna_Basher wrote: »

ISPA have advised me that the alternative provider appointed by the BPA is a firm of solicitors; however, the BPA have not yet revealed this firm's identity.

It should really be up to each appellant as to whether or not they also agree to appoint this alternative provider. Having been promised POPLA, they should be reasonably entitled to insist upon POPLA if they so wish - especially if the firm of solicitors turns out to be Gladstones!

The fact that the appeals will be assessed by A.N. OTHER & not POPLA invalidates all NTKs. POFA 2012 requires that the NTK provide details of "arrangements for resolution of disputes" & as the arrangements detailed in the NTKs will offer POPLA not A.N. OTHER the NTK is invalid & there is therefore no keeper liability.

The keeper/motorist may even have made their decision to appeal & thus forgo the discounted 'fine' on the basis that their appeal would be heard by POPLA. They cannot now be expected to appeal to A.N. OTHER.

The only just solution is for New POPLA to hear all these cases. The only reason for choosing an alternative provider must be that it is cheaper as I am sure that the BPA Ltd don't expect A.N. OTHER to be more favourable to PPCs than POPLA.

beamerguy

Edna_Basher wrote: »

ISPA have advised me that the alternative provider appointed by the BPA is a firm of solicitors; however, the BPA have not yet revealed this firm's identity.

It should really be up to each appellant as to whether or not they also agree to appoint this alternative provider. Having been promised POPLA, they should be reasonably entitled to insist upon POPLA if they so wish - especially if the firm of solicitors turns out to be Gladstones!

By doing this, the BPA will end up like IPC, a closed shop.

I do not trust Troy or the BPA, how on earth can a firm if solicitors claim to be independent ???
All the partners of a solicitors firm, will stick together, Troy is up to it again, I doubt he would be stupid enough to use Gladstones but you never know, the man has no credibility.
There is no reason to accept this and YES, we were promised POPLA, be it old or new, and we are entitled to genuine independent professional adjudication just like the Traffic Penalty Tribunal which consists of adjudicators not linked to each other.
NOT A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ??? FOR GOD'S SAKE TROY

Come on Troy, try and pull the other one, sounds more like a cartel is being set up ..... that would be illegal

And this is why we are asking government for a REAL regulator who is 100% independent

ARHHH:eek:

hoohoo

One of the two will have made a bad bargain. If they are charging by the hour, Trouserfire will be in deep doo doo. If they are charging by the case, the solicitors will be in danger of filing a minimum wage claim against themselves

beamerguy

hoohoo wrote: »

One of the two will have made a bad bargain. If they are charging by the hour, Trouserfire will be in deep doo doo. If they are charging by the case, the solicitors will be in danger of filing a minimum wage claim against themselves

yup, this will be Troy's last and only chance, let's hope the solicitors are fully aware of the SRA ? BECAUSE, complaints are pending
Going to bed with Troy/BPA is a disaster.

Let's wait and see if Troy names them. if he does not, it's a scam, if he does, we have the right to contact the solicitors reminding them of the SRA

VERY SCARY STUFF IS AHEAD FOR TROY

Coupon-mad

hoohoo wrote: »

Do we know who will be doing these yet?

No but Edna Basher above says ISPA told them it was an unidentified firm of solicitors, which was a bit of a concern.

hoohoo

Where have we heard of unidentified solicitors before? Oh...wait.