Right Hassle PoPLA Adjudications

dazster

It is my opinion that anyone receiving one of these Right Hassle "PoPLA" letters should refuse to play along with it for the following reasons:

1. Right Hassle is not independent; it routinely acts for parking companies and their debt collectors.

2. Their illiterate and misleading letter mis-states the position of the Supreme Court with respect to Beavis and betrays an inherent bias towards the parking company.

3. They give only seven days from the date of the letter (so 3 or 4 days in practice) for further submissions to be made. This is totally unacceptable. What if someone is away, or even just downright busy?

4. They state that any further submissions will be sent to the parking company for them to comment, but there is no mention of the appellant having a right to rebut what the parking company comes up with.

5. Many appellants have never received any evidence from the parking company or had the opportunity to comment thereon, and WH gives no indication that this will be addressed.


In my opinion anyone in receipt of this letter should write to the BPA and the PoPLA independent scrutiny board IPSA making the above points, declining to have their appeal decided by Right Hassle, and demanding that their appeal be decided on fair terms by a properly-constituted, genuinely-independent appeals body.

They should also write to their MP, making the above points and complaining that the BPA has welched on its promise to the government to implement an appeals system independent of the parking sector.

fisherjim

You also have to wonder why they plaster "Right Hassle" all over the letter heading with POPLA as a secondary title.

Surely POPLA should be foremost, with their administration details in the footer like the old regime!

If I were a cynic I might think this is done purely to intimidate those that will fail their appeals, and lend extra credibility to decisions that are not binding on the [STRIKE]victim[/STRIKE] motorist!

But of course not these are honorable solicitors aren't they!

dazster

fisherjim wrote: »

But of course not these are [STRIKE]honorable[/STRIKE] 'orrible solicitors aren't they!

Fixed that for you!

beamerguy

It appears that what they say, they don't mean

THE BPA
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/who-we-are

"BPA staff are committed to the Association’s core values which are at the heart of the BPA's strategy. These values are summarised as PRIDE" ????

"Respect with Responsibility"
"Integrity and Innovation"
"Encouraging Excellence"

Then click on .... Our Mission and Vision
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Our-Mission-Vision

"Putting the consumer at the heart of our thinking" ???

Then the BPA take on Wright Hassall, a firm of solicitors who have a confliction of interests who carry the flag POPLA on their letterheads ??? yet Wright Hassall side with PPC's and take people to court ? (even though they lost in court last friday)
One must assume that the BPA has different thoughts to the rest of us ..... Putting the consumer at the heart of our thinking

WHAT A JOKE ?

Then there is the ISPA
http://ispa.co.uk/userfiles/files/PRESS%20RELEASE%20-%20ISPA%20appoints%20new%20independent%20assessors.pdf

QUOTE:-
"Nicola Mullany, chairman of ISPA, welcomed Ms Holland and Mr Price to their new roles, saying:
“The independent assessors will play a vital role in helping to ensure the quality of PoPLA decisions is high and that the service is - and is seen to be - independent. Charlotte and Nick bring a wealth of
experience from careers in the law. This, coupled with their independence, judgment and integrity, equips them ideally for the role of Independent Assessor.”

QUALITY OF POPLA DECISIONS ??
IS SEEN TO BE INDEPENDENT ??

WOW ... REALLY ???

Clearly the thought patterns of Wright Hassall are seriously flawed, the only other solicitor I can think of who would stick their neck on the line for a scammer is Gladstones ? There must be others around
We must all assume that the flawed mentality of Wright Hassall and their total lack of being independent means they are not in the interests of the motorist.
How much more "egg on their face" do they really want

dazster

So, we are now seeing ridiculous and premature decisions from the incompetent, biased Wright Hassall. Anyone who didn't heed my advice above, you were warned.

If you've now got one of these ridiculous back-of-a-fag-packet "adjudications" I still urge you to complain to ISPA and your MP.

Herzlos

I think you should play along as like or not they are the official adjudicator, and it shows willing on your part to resolve it. Then complain like hell about every procedural error, taking it to the SRA and ombudsman.

beamerguy

Herzlos wrote: »

I think you should play along as like or not they are the official adjudicator, and it shows willing on your part to resolve it. Then complain like hell about every procedural error, taking it to the SRA and ombudsman.

The Prankster states "The third problem is that the WH assessor is not named...most likely for reasons which will become obvious."
Being appointed by the BPA is not exactly official.

Plus, 3,500 plus people showed willing in the first place and they were let down. Therefore, there is every reason to reject everything that Wright Hassall do with poor adjudication.

dazster

beamerguy wrote: »

Being appointed by the BPA is not exactly official.

Perzackly.

beamerguy wrote: »

Plus, 3,500 plus people showed willing in the first place and they were let down. Therefore, there is every reason to reject everything that Wright Hassall do with poor adjudication.

Perzackly again. The WHOPLA adjudication I have seen had plenty of points on which Classic PoPLA could've upheld the appeal, GPEOL was one of the weakest points.

WHOPLA has ignored all of them and rejected the appeal solely on the basis that the events alleged by the PPC did in fact happen. Which is indeed the case, the facts were never in dispute: the appeal was actually on a slew of watertight legal points, all of which WHOPLA completely ignored.

pappa_golf

in 2020 the SRA will reply


"we have looked into your complaints regarding WH and find no wrong doings , however we will hold your complaint on file.


after 100s of complaints about swarts , it took them 3 yrs to say he had to work for a company rather than be self employed , therefor legitimising the £50 fee

bod1467

dazster wrote: »

WHOPLA

I don't know if you came up with that, but I like it.

dazster

pappa_golf wrote: »

in 2020 the SRA will reply

The Legal Ombudsman, however, is a different matter: WH has to pay the Ombudsman £400 for every complaint investigated, regardless of the outcome.

However, the Ombudsman will only investigate complaints regarding legal services provided to the complainant, it will not investigate complaints about legal services provided to someone else. So, is Wright Hassall proving legal services to the appellant? I would argue that they are (of course!), but I'll bet that WH will argue otherwise and say that their client is the BPA.