Wright Hassall (POPLA) - further evidence request to PPC

leeda84

Last week, I received an email from WH with an attached letter addressed to the "Car Park Operator By Email". The Appeal Outcome is "adjourned" and WH have asked for one piece of additional evidence from UKPC.

Should I have received my letter from WH requesting further evidence before they approached the PPC? Or should I expect to receive my letter at some point after the PPC's 7 day deadline?

beamerguy

leeda84 wrote: »

Last week, I received an email from WH with an attached letter addressed to the "Car Park Operator By Email". The Appeal Outcome is "adjourned" and WH have asked for one piece of additional evidence from UKPC.

Should I have received my letter from WH requesting further evidence before they approached the PPC? Or should I expect to receive my letter at some point after the PPC's 7 day deadline?

Clearly Wright Hassall are not convinced with what UKPC have said, hence more evidence, they are not asking that from you.

Do you know what piece of evidence they require ?

leeda84

I know that as that's not what I asked - I want to know if WH should have sent a letter to me asking for my additional evidence first or whether I should expect a letter after the PPC have responded to the aforementioned email.

WH have asked UKPC to supply a signed and dated witness statement or contract to manage the site. I mentioned in my rebuttal to old POPLA that UKPC need to supply POPLA with an unredacted contract to show that they are authorised to manage the site.

beamerguy

leeda84 wrote: »

I know that as that's not what I asked - I want to know if WH should have sent a letter to me asking for my additional evidence first or whether I should expect a letter after the PPC have responded to the aforementioned email.

WH have asked UKPC to supply a signed and dated witness statement or contract to manage the site. I mentioned in my rebuttal to old POPLA that UKPC need to supply POPLA with an unredacted contract to show that they are authorised to manage the site.

Do you have additional evidence and what is it

hoohoo

Very interesting in that this is not normal POPLA behaviour. The operator has to stand or fall by the evidence provided. It is not within WH's remit to ask for anything missing.

An yes, you should have have a letter stating your case was finally being heard.

leeda84

Here is a redacted copy of the letter I have received.
http://i.imgur.com/OrmK61r.jpg

It says adjourned in the header which leads me to believe that they haven't began the appeal process and why I maybe haven't received the standard letter other people have received? If UKPC failed to send a copy of any contract to old popla in the first instance, why the hell are they getting another opportunity to do this before my additional evidence is seen? It also seems like WH are pretty much giving UKPC a head's up of 'we NEED a signed statement or contract else the appeal won't go in your favour'. And WH are independent? YEAH RIGHT!

Beamerguy - yes I have additional evidence though I'm not quite sure why the details of that is relevant when I'm solely asking about WH (acting as POPLA) processes?

Grandad123

It's not much help, but my guess is they sent this to you by mistake, as it's headed 'To the PPC' and somehow you got CC'd.


There were concerns from the beginning that this situation would arise.


Hopefully one of the gurus will come up with some advice, but I don't think there is enough experience of the WH farce at the moment

beamerguy

I would come to the same conclusion as leeda84

As hoohoo says, "It is not within WH's remit to ask for anything missing"

This would put you at a disadvantage which is unfair practice on behalf of Wright Hassall

I assume you should had never been sent this letter as it was for the eyes of UKPC, NOT YOU ?

It therefore must now be of grave concern as to how many times Wright Hassall are doing this and how many people are losing at the Wright Hassall POPLA.

You need to issue your concerns to the BPA and the ISPA

ISPA - director@ispa.co.uk
Nicola Mullany .... http://ispa.co.uk/board?member=1

The ISPA has already shown concerns about Wright Hassall and claim to be monitoring them.

http://ispa.co.uk/userfiles/files/ISPA%20Statement%20regarding%20the%20appointment%20of%20Wright%20Hassall.pdf

It would also be a good idea to copy the Parking Prankster with this one

prankster@parking-prankster.com

Castle

leeda84 wrote: »

If UKPC failed to send a copy of any contract to old popla in the first instance, why the hell are they getting another opportunity to do this before my additional evidence is seen?

Indeed; if old POPLA never received a copy of the contract then they could simply have uphold your appeal then and there; certainly no need to wait for Beavis.

leeda84

I've emailed ISPA with my concerns and CC'd PP in. I thought it was strange when I received the letter seeing as I haven't heard anything else from WH.

Also, if WH have email addresses, why are they sending appellant letters only by post and sending the car park operators letters just by email!? What's that WH? You giving the PPC another helping hand with the advantage of additional time. Disgusting.

beamerguy

leeda84 wrote: »

I've emailed ISPA with my concerns and CC'd PP in. I thought it was strange when I received the letter seeing as I haven't heard anything else from WH.

Also, if WH have email addresses, why are they sending appellant letters only by post and sending the car park operators letters just by email!? What's that WH? You giving the PPC another helping hand with the advantage of additional time. Disgusting.

Please keep this forum updated on this issue.
It will open the door as to how many times Wright Hassall has done this and it could have very serious implications not only for WH but the BPA as well who employed WH