Wright Hassall (POPLA) - further evidence request to PPC

beamerguy

leeda84 wrote: »

Response from Nicola Mullany-

Quote:
I have looked into the concerns you raised in your initial email. I can confirm our independent assessors have seen evidence of specific information being requested from appellants. As such I don't think the request for specific evidence from the operator in your case is evidence of bias. (yeah, that's if they even bother to send a letter out at all)


What did these so called assessors, pick up on ?

4000 plus cases, did they look at every single case as to what Wright Hassall are doing.
Just one case of the operator being primed is one case too many and the ISPA reply means very little when Wright Hassall are involved and the antics they get up to.

The ISPA needs to prove that Wright Hassall are not pre priming operators, and until 100% positive proof is provided the motorist has no option but to assume that they are.

No point in talking to the BPA, they have already proven themselves to be useless

Mike172

Got my email through

We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.

POPLA received a number of appeals that related to the PCN not being a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (“GPEOL”). Your appeal had been initially marked as a GPEOL appeal and was therefore placed on hold. You should have received a letter confirming this from the BPA at the time.

The reason your appeal was placed on hold was due to the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis, which was being heard in the Supreme Court. This case addressed the requirements of a GPEOL. Judgment was handed down on 4 November 2015 and confirmed that a PCN is a necessity in order to ensure proper use of a car park, and also to ensure that there is a commercial justification for the car park operator to manage the car park.

For completeness, we are not instructed to act on behalf of either party. Given the length of time that has passed since the Appeal was lodged, we have been asked to contact you to give you the opportunity to provide further evidence in relation to the Appeal. We will then forward this evidence to the Car Park Operator so that they may provide their comments. We will then be able to make a decision on the Appeal.

You must send this evidence within 7 days from the date of this letter. If evidence is not provided we will have no option but to assess the Appeal based on the evidence we have before us. You can send your evidence by email to popla.evidence@wrighthassall.co.uk or by post to POPLA c/o Wright Hassall LLP, Olympus Avenue, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV34 6BF.

Given the appeal had numerous appeal points other than GPEOL, are we safe to assume they will consider these (cant believe im actually writing this lol)

Thanks

pappa_golf

You must send this evidence within 7 days from the date of this letter




that was sent 3rd class by UK mail


should be seven days after receiving this first class royal mail letter

leeda84

In Nicola's last email to me, she said she has asked the independent assessors to check all future audits each time they see a case where one side has given specific evidence following a Wright Hassall request and that the other side has been given a chance to respond to that.

She also said that she wants the independent assessors to concentrate their efforts on unsuccessful appeals where the appellant has not received the initial letter from Wright Hassall and has encouraged me to ask appellants to get in contact with her if this is the case.

Mike172 wrote: »

Got my email through

You actually received an email rather than a posted letter? I wonder if Wright Hassall reads the forum...

Mike172

I suspect so! Reading Pranksters advice its best to submit the appeal again.

Im half tempted to ignore as I fancy a day in court, if that would happen, and the DRP letters (assuming WH dont pick up the duties of issuing spam) would make useful fire lighters for the winter.....

/e Might have received both, Im not home yet. Just got the email through (with todays date as well)

pappa_golf

it stinks that the ISPA are having to be on hand to check WH out , and it was clear from the start that the are not un biased , hell they are debt collectors for many of those companies , how can an appeal company risk the chance of loosing paying PPCs that pay them for debt recovery .


one or the other! , they should have been told to cancel and not take on any debt recovery whist adjudicating




She also said that she wants the independent assessors to concentrate their efforts on unsuccessful appeals where the appellant has not received the initial letter from Wright Hassall and has encouraged me to ask appellants to get in contact with her if this is the case.

not that is their job , hell they can use tracing agencies and the DVLA etc to check that ALL have received the correct letter

their job , not yours

Coupon-mad

Mike172 wrote: »

I suspect so! Reading Pranksters advice its best to submit the appeal again.

Im half tempted to ignore as I fancy a day in court, if that would happen, and the DRP letters (assuming WH dont pick up the duties of issuing spam) would make useful fire lighters for the winter.....

/e Might have received both, Im not home yet. Just got the email through (with todays date as well)

I would not send the original appeal as it was.

Send it with a caveat that in the light of the Beavis case that your other appeal points stand but that the point about GPEOL is now specifically updated as is the point about signage (as both were key to the Supreme Court decision). Mention that the POPLA Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, stated in 2015 that appellants would be allowed to respond to the Beavis outcome and to show how that case supports their own position by adding a further submission, so this is your considered final submission, post Beavis, as offered by the Lead Adjudicator.

Then add something like this but changed to suit YOUR case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70714537#Comment_70714537

And improve on your signage point by showing how unclear the signs are when compared to the ones in the Beavis case. Some wording from this post might assist:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70636374#Comment_70636374

Finally, repeat your other appeal points and sign of that this charge in this case is unsupported by the Beavis decision in terms of unclear signage and no legitimate interest shown which could possibly save the charge from being a penalty. As the Judges at the Supreme Court stated that the penalty rule is certainly engaged, this operator using this evidence, has failed to meet the bar set by ParkingEye in the car park in the Beavis case, in terms of disproportionate charge rationale, commercial justification and prominent signs clearly communicating the charge itself before the point of parking.

leeda84

pappa_golf wrote: »

She also said that she wants the independent assessors to concentrate their efforts on unsuccessful appeals where the appellant has not received the initial letter from Wright Hassall and has encouraged me to ask appellants to get in contact with her if this is the case.

not that is their job , hell they can use tracing agencies and the DVLA etc to check that ALL have received the correct letter

their job , not yours

I'm not sure how they can use the DVLA or tracing agencies to find out whether a letter has been delivered or not? Just because an address is correct does not mean to say that the letter has physically landed on the appellant's doorstep. This is why I made a fuss about Wright Hassall not bothering to email appellants as well as posting letters if they had the appellant's email address. If WH had emailed my letters, I would have 99.9% received them. But they didn't nor did they post them. I can understand one going missing but BOTH going walkies? Nah.

Its a fruitless task for me to contact the unsuccessful appellants anyway as the majority of appellants won't be forum users. It'll be down to ISPA in the main to find out who has an unsuccessful appeal and look in to that appeal fully to see if there were any failings in WH's processes.

pappa_golf

It'll be down to ISPA in the main to find out who has an unsuccessful appeal and look in to that appeal fully to see if there were any failings in WH's processes.




but will they


this shambolic episode will be done and dusted in a few months , and quietly forgotten about by the BPA/POPLa

beamerguy

leeda84 wrote: »

In Nicola's last email to me, she said she has asked the independent assessors to check all future audits each time they see a case where one side has given specific evidence following a Wright Hassall request and that the other side has been given a chance to respond to that.

She also said that she wants the independent assessors to concentrate their efforts on unsuccessful appeals where the appellant has not received the initial letter from Wright Hassall and has encouraged me to ask appellants to get in contact with her if this is the case.

You actually received an email rather than a posted letter? I wonder if Wright Hassall reads the forum...

You can be certain that Wright Hassall read this forum as do most of these bods including the ISPA and BPA.

The ISPA must act quickly as who knows what paperwork/information could be destroyed.

Nobody should forget that Wright Hassall also plays the role of debt collectors and solicitors who act on behalf of scammers using scare tactics. They do not have the qualifications to come even close to being independent

Everyone can thank the BPA for the most stupid error in employing WH