Wright Hassall (POPLA) - further evidence request to PPC

beamerguy

As commented above, we see on this forum a very small amount about these stayed cases.

Wright Hassall has been caught out thanks to the OP leeda84.

Despite the fact that the ISPA stated they will independently audit appeal decisions, and will maintain audit oversight of the process, clearly this is not the case.

I very much doubt this is the only case whereby Wright Hassall has pre primed the operator, clearly giving the operator the correct information to win the appeal.

Wright Hassall made an error with this OP by supplying a copy they sent to UKPC. This simple error means that Wright Hassall are no longer credible and nobody should accept a rejection which could be flawed in favour of the PPC.

The problem is letting all those people know, those we never see on this forum. The ISPA now has it's work cut out so let's hope that Wright Hassall retains all paperwork of all rejected appeals.

Great story for the media to pick up on, it might be the only way to reach all those people who have been rejected by Wright Hassall

beamerguy

IanP2015 wrote: »

No I didn't to be honest i'd never heard of ISPA until I started reading up more on PPC's and reading the pranksters blog.

But by that time my case was already pending the Bevis outcome and then moved to WH.

It's never too late

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

leeda84

Now this is amusing - WH has today allowed the second of my appeals because UKPC failed to submit evidence that they had a legal right to manage the site :rotfl:

Herzlos

leeda84 wrote: »

Now this is amusing - WH has today allowed the second of my appeals because UKPC failed to submit evidence that they had a legal right to manage the site :rotfl:

Probably as a direct result of this thread, so they can pretend to be impartial to the ISPA.

So does that mean they've provided inconsistent results?

beamerguy

leeda84 wrote: »

Now this is amusing - WH has today allowed the second of my appeals because UKPC failed to submit evidence that they had a legal right to manage the site :rotfl:

As if by pure coincidence after your complaint ???

It's a bad fish smell

Guess UKPC might well be peed off with this inconsistency

leeda84

Herzlos wrote: »

Probably as a direct result of this thread, so they can pretend to be impartial to the ISPA.

So does that mean they've provided inconsistent results?

I haven't had a decision on the appeal this thread is about yet. UKPC were given 7 days from the 13th so who knows, guess I'll find out soon enough!

leeda84

beamerguy wrote: »

Guess UKPC might well be peed off with this inconsistency

There is no evidence of inconsistency with this yet. I only received one letter addressed to the car park operator, WH could well have sent two saying the exact same thing with different popla codes, etc. and UKPC has just not responded to it.

dazster

beamerguy wrote: »

It's never too late

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

Absolutely. Complain to ISPA now. They are seriously naffed off at the BPA farming this out to the scumbags at WH, you are pushing against an open door.

dazster

Herzlos wrote: »

Probably as a direct result of this thread, so they can pretend to be impartial to the ISPA.

But the impartiality arises not from the appeal outcomes (which are, in this context, irrelevant) but from their clandestine "coaching" of the operator to provide more and better evidence. They are bang-to-rights on that regardless of the appeal outcomes.

Herzlos

dazster wrote: »

But the impartiality arises not from the appeal outcomes (which are, in this context, irrelevant) but from their clandestine "coaching" of the operator to provide more and better evidence. They are bang-to-rights on that regardless of the appeal outcomes.

Oh, I never said they were any good at covering up their tricks. They've shown themselves to be pretty incompetent all round :beer: