Wright Hassall (POPLA) - further evidence request to PPC

The_Deep

In view of the existing conflict of interest, I am of the opinion that any decision reached by WH which adversely affects the consumer has to be treated with a great deal of cynicism.

Unless WH start finding for the appellant in a large majority of cases it is highly unlikely that they are either impartial or thorough.

dazster

ISPA has publicly expressed its concern about the appointment of Wright Hassall. Hopefully this evidence of bias towards the operator will help them to beat up Patrick Trousefire over it.

Grandad123

I'm surprised how little there has been on the forum re. the WH fiasco.


Maybe I've missed it but I've only seen one dodgy rejection and this 'unsavoury incident'.


There must be more going on.


They seem to have difficulty in defining who they are.


I thought 'brand' POPLA was coined by someone on this board as a shorthand reference. I am no legal buff but surely POPLA is a body and has an entity and a brand is just a concept so can't be the same thing.

dazster

The idea of "brand PoPLA" came from the BPA. They basically said because PoPLA is a brand they can get anyone they like to issue adjudications under the letterhead.

System

The idea of "brand PoPLA" came from the BPA. They basically said because PoPLA is a brand they can get anyone they like to issue adjudications under the letterhead.

I'd suggest that has backfired on them. Rumours are that DCLG is going to put a line through POPLA and the IPC's version soon.

The instruction from the government when POPLA was first mooted was "it has to be fair and seen to be fair". They seem to have forgotten that.

But here is some information that may have mislaid

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/168460/response/426738/attach/4/130904%20f0010347%20rel%20docs%20r.pdf

Gadfium

beamerguy wrote: »

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.
[EMAIL="prankster@parking-prankster.com"][/EMAIL]

I would agree with this.WH clearly stated in their letters to the stayed "old POPLA" cases that they were going to present any further evidence received from the appellant to the PPC to allow them to comment (see the letter here) . To me, it looks like they are basically giving the PPC another chance to address the points raised by the appellant rather than adjudicating on the appeal.

The email letter that the OP has received is addressed to the PPC and it appears to have been sent to the appellant in error. In effect, they are acting as a filter for the PPC, picking out the points in the appeal that the PPC will fail on and allowing the PPC to submit further evidence, instead of just making a decision based on the evidence to hand. how can that be fair or impartial???

Nicola Mullany is on the record as saying that the ISPA have placed two senior lawyers to act as independent assessors of WH's work. WH's behaviour MUST be highlighted to her as they are clearly not acting in a fair and impartial manner.

beamerguy

Gadfium wrote: »

I would agree with this.WH clearly stated in their letters to the stayed "old POPLA" cases that they were going to present any further evidence received from the appellant to the PPC to allow them to comment (see the letter here) . To me, it looks like they are basically giving the PPC another chance to address the points raised by the appellant rather than adjudicating on the appeal.

The email letter that the OP has received is addressed to the PPC and it appears to have been sent to the appellant in error. In effect, they are acting as a filter for the PPC, picking out the points in the appeal that the PPC will fail on and allowing the PPC to submit further evidence, instead of just making a decision based on the evidence to hand. how can that be fair or impartial???

Nicola Mullany is on the record as saying that the ISPA have placed two senior lawyers to act as independent assessors of WH's work. WH's behaviour MUST be highlighted to her as they are clearly not acting in a fair and impartial manner.

The question is ... how many times has Wright Hassall done this, if the OP had not highlighted this, we would never know.
Nicola Mullany must now investigate Wright Hassall for the truth.
In view of this, Wright Hassall has lost all credibility and is NOT worthy of handling their version of POPLA and any decision where the appeal is rejected should be referred to Nicola Mullany for an un-bias investigation.

System

Nicola Mullany is on the record as saying that the ISPA have placed two senior lawyers

That should read "Nicola Mullany is on the record as saying that the ISPA have placed two senior criminal lawyers". Perhaps they will be able to use their expertise here then.

Gadfium

IamEmanresu wrote: »

That should read "Nicola Mullany is on the record as saying that the ISPA have placed two senior criminal lawyers"

I can't verify that. All I know is that she has put it in writing to me that the ISPA has "appointed two senior lawyers to act as independent assessors. They will report to ISPA on how - amongst other things - conflicts are managed by WH when dealing with the adjourned cases."

leeda84

I forgot to mention, I emailed WH back asking why the PPC had been given an opportunity to submit further evidence before me and in the interests of being 'fair', when will I be given my opportunity. Unsurprisingly I have not received a response yet.

beamerguy wrote: »

The question is ... how many times has Wright Hassall done this, if the OP had not highlighted this, we would never know.
Nicola Mullany must now investigate Wright Hassall for the truth.

I said as much in my email to her.