Right Hassle PoPLA Adjudications

Grandad123

As an interested observer of this whole WHOPLA business I am surprised by how few responses there were from the first letters.


It makes me wonder how many of the cases are being responded to by people who are reading advice from the forum, or are doing there own thing.


I don't know if it possible to have a dedicated thread so that a common course of action could be worked out.


If, as it seems likely, there will be some dodgy decisions it might be nice to present a solid front rather than a lot of individual strategies.

beamerguy

Grandad123 wrote: »

As an interested observer of this whole WHOPLA business I am surprised by how few responses there were from the first letters.


It makes me wonder how many of the cases are being responded to by people who are reading advice from the forum, or are doing there own thing.


I don't know if it possible to have a dedicated thread so that a common course of action could be worked out.


If, as it seems likely, there will be some dodgy decisions it might be nice to present a solid front rather than a lot of individual strategies.

The post titled "ISPA statement on appointment of Wright Hassall"
has been read 1081 times in 2 days, so we hope that even though they might not post here, the word is getting out about Wright Hassall

Edna_Basher

Grandad123 wrote: »

As an interested observer of this whole WHOPLA business I am surprised by how few responses there were from the first letters.

I don't think everyone has received Wright Hassall's first letter yet - we certainly haven't, even though we have four outstanding WHOPLA cases.

Nonetheless, we sent a warning shot across Wright Hassall's bows last week, highlighting how in December last year, the BPA had advised us that they were appointing a provider to act as if it were POPLA. We made it clear that we shall require Wright Hassall to act as if it were POPLA including that they:

• Ensure that we are able to comment upon any additional evidence submitted by the operator
• Respond to our e-mails and / or telephone calls should we have any queries
• Provide us with the names of the assessor(s) who consider our cases.

Also, just in case Wright Hassall hadn't been given all of the details of our cases, we provided them with all of the relevant documents to demonstrate that none of the four cases was dependent upon the outcome of Beavis and how all four should have been determined in our favour by "old POPLA".

pappa_golf

you have complained , your cases will go in your favour ,

how many people will not complain ,
how many people will not know about evidence packs ,
how many people have not received letters

leeda84

I haven't received any letters from WH despite 2 outstanding appeals rebutted back in early September 2015. Mine weren't dependant on GPEOL as there were plenty of other points raised.
Would it be best practice to do as Edna has and give WH a nudge?

Marktheshark

They are not adjudicators, they are an offer of alternative dispute resolution.
Any appointment qualifies them to hear cases AFTER they were appointed.

I agree 100% reject the offer and demand independent ADR from a set up that is not primary involved in collection of parking charges.

The passing of details to a firm that operates under CSA licence NOT SRA ! is a clear conflict of interests as they are then party to information for their own financial gain.

The playing the game and dancing the fiddle with these parking crooks has to stop, just think about it, every time the game is played they move one step nearer to legitimisation.

dazster

Marktheshark wrote: »

They are not adjudicators, they are an offer of alternative dispute resolution.
Any appointment qualifies them to hear cases AFTER they were appointed.

I agree 100% reject the offer and demand independent ADR from a set up that is not primary involved in collection of parking charges.

The passing of details to a firm that operates under CSA licence NOT SRA ! is a clear conflict of interests as they are then party to information for their own financial gain.

The playing the game and dancing the fiddle with these parking crooks has to stop, just think about it, every time the game is played they move one step nearer to legitimisation.

This. And maybe if everyone had given Classic PoPLA the cold shoulder right from the off instead of being wooed by it's not-a-GPEOL friendliness we wouldn't now have the shambles that is New PoPLA, which is proving itself to be almost as long-tailed and bouncy as the IAS.

nigelbb

Despite the best efforts of MSE & PePiPoo & BMPA appeals to POPLA or IAS are just a minor irritant for the PPCs. Only 1-2% of motorists receiving a parking charge appeal to the 'independent' appeals services. The remainder either pay up or ignore. The very incompetence of the evidence (or lack thereof) submitted by most PPCs serves to prove that they care little about it. With the millions of parking tickets issued by the PPC's vast moneymaking machine it's simply not worth them bothering to pay any attention to individual appeals as it's more efficient just to send out template letters.