Wright Hassall (POPLA) - further evidence request to PPC

pappa_golf

4000 complaints to the ISPA would be noticed , multiple emails to the SRA regarding WH would be noticed as well


WH statement : Earlier today I received an email (from WH on behalf of POPLA) saying that my appeal has been rejected andI must pay within 28 days"


is completely false and misleading after being sent on solisitors letter headed paper

leeda84

Browny137 wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Earlier today I received an email (from WH on behalf of POPLA) saying that my appeal has been rejected and I must pay within 28 days.

I too got a letter asking for extra evidence, which must be provided within 7 days, but I only received the letter the day before the deadline! However, I did re-itterate my original evidence (Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss), but there was no reference to this in my final rejection letter.

In addition to this, WH have said they will not respond to any correspondence from either party as this decision is 'final'. Given their very generic rationale for rejecting the appeal I find this very unfair - probably just a scare tactic.

Anyone got opinions on this?

Many thanks,
Adam

Did you correspond with "old" POPLA through email? If so then Wright Hassall would have had your email address. There is no reason why your letter could not have been sent through email (instead of/as well as through the post). If you had checked your email on day 1, you would've had the full 7 days to respond to the letter which is what the operators get. You were only given a 1 day timescale - this is not acceptable nor is it fair.

Please email ISPA and ask them to look in to your appeal as the operator may have been asked for specific evidence which you have not been given the opportunity to comment on. Please also include about unfair timescales to respond, especially if your email was known to "old" POPLA before the cases got shifted to WH.

Edna_Basher

Mike172 wrote: »

I was considering ignoring them completely and I think I will now.

Rather than ignore them, why not put them on the spot instead?

How about writing back to WH (cc ISPA) along the lines of.......


"Dear Sir

POPLA Ref [0123456789]

I refer to your letter dated [Date] in which you advise that Wright Hassall LLP (“WH”) has been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to undertake the assessment of those POPLA cases that had been adjourned as a result of Mr. Barry Beavis appealing from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, including my own case as detailed above.

I trust that the BPA has made you aware that prior to appointing WH, it promised appellants that their outstanding cases would be undertaken by an independent service provider appointed to act as if it were POPLA.

As detailed below, I note from your letter that contrary to this promise, there are a number of fundamental elements within WH's proposed appeals process where it would not be acting as if were POPLA; this is not acceptable.

Provision of Further Evidence

WH seeks to require me to provide any additional evidence within seven days from the date of your letter. London Councils did not apply such unreasonable and unrealistic deadlines; WH is not acting as if it were POPLA in this respect.

Operator’s Evidence

I note from your letter that once WH receives my additional evidence, it will then forward this to the operator so that they may then provide their own comments and that WH shall then assess the appeal without me being given the the opportunity to review or comment upon the operator’s additional evidence.

In his POPLA 2015 Annual Report, Mr. Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator stated that at POPLA, Assessors consider the evidence produced by each party, all of which evidence the other party has the opportunity to see and comment upon…it is certainly a basic principle of a fair appeals service that each party is given the opportunity to see the other party’s case and to comment upon it. This is the position at POPLA. Appellants should obviously receive the operator’s evidence in its entirety.

By denying me the reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon the operator’s evidence, WH would not be acting as if it were POPLA. This would be wholly unsatisfactory and contrary to the basic principles of Natural Justice.

Transparency

In his POPLA 2015 Annual Report, Mr. Greenslade adds that each case is carefully considered, not by an anonymous decision maker but rather by a named Assessor, explaining that he really did not see how anything less could be considered fair and open.

I understand that in the cases already concluded by WH, the assessments have been issued anonymously; this is not satisfactory. I reasonably require that in order to act as if it were POPLA, WH must provide full transparency in respect of those responsible for undertaking the assessments.

Responses to Other Correspondence

In your letter you state that WH is not able to respond to any other correspondence nor is it able to provide any information over the telephone. London Councils was always willing and able to respond to other correspondence and telephone calls. WH is not acting as if it were POPLA in this respect.

I reasonably require that WH removes any impediment that is preventing it from being able to respond to other correspondence (including this letter) or to provide information over the telephone.

Independence

Although the BPA promised us that cases would be considered by an independent service provider, I understand that WH is currently acting as a debt collector on behalf of a number of private parking companies. Thus, there is a clear risk of WH’s independence being compromised.

In order that I may be satisfied with WH’s independence in this process, please provide me with details of the safeguards WH has put in place to segregate its debt collection and POPLA assessment functions.

Whilst I am willing to utilise WH’s services to conclude the determination of my outstanding POPLA appeal, I must make it clear that this is conditional upon WH undertaking the process as if it were POPLA as promised by the BPA.

Therefore within 7 days of this letter, please provide me with details of the actions that WH shall now take to ensure that the assessment of my appeal is conducted as if it were by POPLA. Once I am satisfied with WH’s revised proposals, I shall provide WH with my additional evidence in order that the process may begin.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your prompt response.


Yours faithfully,"

beamerguy

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Rather than ignore them, why not put them on the spot instead?

Agreed, just type in WRIGHT HASSALL into google and up comes the whole sorry story about them.
Who in their right mind would use WH ?
Other contenders are Gladstones and Miah

And it's because of pure greed

I doubt if the BPA has paid WH enough money to get themselves out of this problem, this is just the start ? I said a few months ago that this will cost WH dearly

Grandad123

I've just had a little surprise.


When the BPA told me they had sent my appeal to WH (no mention of POPLA), I threw my toys out the pram and asked for my appeal back as it wasn't POPLA to whom I'd sent it.


As it was obviously going to be a stich-up I might as well take my chances with the SCC.


The BPA got all the evidence back and sent it to me.


Today I received the infamous email requesting additional evidence.


When I have calmed down I will send evidence and see if by some miracle a contract appears in the PPC's evidence.

beamerguy

Grandad123 wrote: »

I've just had a little surprise.


When the BPA told me they had sent my appeal to WH (no mention of POPLA), I threw my toys out the pram and asked for my appeal back as it wasn't POPLA to whom I'd sent it.


As it was obviously going to be a stich-up I might as well take my chances with the SCC.


The BPA got all the evidence back and sent it to me.


Today I received the infamous email requesting additional evidence.


When I have calmed down I will send evidence and see if by some miracle a contract appears in the PPC's evidence.

This is like a burnt out old train trying to climb Everest?
(The Wright Hassall fiasco I mean, not the OP)

Edna_Basher

Grandad123 wrote: »

When I have calmed down I will send evidence and see if by some miracle a contract appears in the PPC's evidence.

Hi Grandad123

There lies one of the most fundamental flaws in Wright Hassall's process - you won't be given the chance to see the PPC's evidence, let alone comment upon it.

Wright Hassall seem hell-bent on running the process as it it were the IAS rather than POPLA.

Grandad123

Hi Edna. I don't expect to see the contract before the verdict but they will have to refer to it in some way or other which will confirm their tactics.


There was no contract in their original submission and the landowner has confirmed the contract is with the tenants.


Can I pm you as I would like your opinion off-forum regarding some issues.


PS I am not a stalker.

blisteringblue

Browny137 wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Earlier today I received an email (from WH on behalf of POPLA) saying that my appeal has been rejected and I must pay within 28 days.

Hi Adam,

How long between you getting this and submitting your extra evidence email? I'm in the same boat and it was 6 weeks yesterday that I sent my email under the 7 day request from WH? Still waiting on final adjudication.

BB

Mike172

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Rather than ignore them, why not put them on the spot instead?

How about writing back to WH (cc ISPA) along the lines of.......


"Dear Sir

POPLA Ref [0123456789]

I refer to your letter dated [Date] in which you advise that Wright Hassall LLP (“WH”) has been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to undertake the assessment of those POPLA cases that had been adjourned as a result of Mr. Barry Beavis appealing from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, including my own case as detailed above.

I trust that the BPA has made you aware that prior to appointing WH, it promised appellants that their outstanding cases would be undertaken by an independent service provider appointed to act as if it were POPLA.

As detailed below, I note from your letter that contrary to this promise, there are a number of fundamental elements within WH's proposed appeals process where it would not be acting as if were POPLA; this is not acceptable.

Provision of Further Evidence

WH seeks to require me to provide any additional evidence within seven days from the date of your letter. London Councils did not apply such unreasonable and unrealistic deadlines; WH is not acting as if it were POPLA in this respect.

Operator’s Evidence

I note from your letter that once WH receives my additional evidence, it will then forward this to the operator so that they may then provide their own comments and that WH shall then assess the appeal without me being given the the opportunity to review or comment upon the operator’s additional evidence.

In his POPLA 2015 Annual Report, Mr. Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator stated that at POPLA, Assessors consider the evidence produced by each party, all of which evidence the other party has the opportunity to see and comment upon…it is certainly a basic principle of a fair appeals service that each party is given the opportunity to see the other party’s case and to comment upon it. This is the position at POPLA. Appellants should obviously receive the operator’s evidence in its entirety.

By denying me the reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon the operator’s evidence, WH would not be acting as if it were POPLA. This would be wholly unsatisfactory and contrary to the basic principles of Natural Justice.

Transparency

In his POPLA 2015 Annual Report, Mr. Greenslade adds that each case is carefully considered, not by an anonymous decision maker but rather by a named Assessor, explaining that he really did not see how anything less could be considered fair and open.

I understand that in the cases already concluded by WH, the assessments have been issued anonymously; this is not satisfactory. I reasonably require that in order to act as if it were POPLA, WH must provide full transparency in respect of those responsible for undertaking the assessments.

Responses to Other Correspondence

In your letter you state that WH is not able to respond to any other correspondence nor is it able to provide any information over the telephone. London Councils was always willing and able to respond to other correspondence and telephone calls. WH is not acting as if it were POPLA in this respect.

I reasonably require that WH removes any impediment that is preventing it from being able to respond to other correspondence (including this letter) or to provide information over the telephone.

Independence

Although the BPA promised us that cases would be considered by an independent service provider, I understand that WH is currently acting as a debt collector on behalf of a number of private parking companies. Thus, there is a clear risk of WH’s independence being compromised.

In order that I may be satisfied with WH’s independence in this process, please provide me with details of the safeguards WH has put in place to segregate its debt collection and POPLA assessment functions.

Whilst I am willing to utilise WH’s services to conclude the determination of my outstanding POPLA appeal, I must make it clear that this is conditional upon WH undertaking the process as if it were POPLA as promised by the BPA.

Therefore within 7 days of this letter, please provide me with details of the actions that WH shall now take to ensure that the assessment of my appeal is conducted as if it were by POPLA. Once I am satisfied with WH’s revised proposals, I shall provide WH with my additional evidence in order that the process may begin.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your prompt response.


Yours faithfully,"

On the fence whether or not to send out rachieb77's response or this one.

Considering WH will decline the appeal regardless and be about as transparent as a sheet of lead metal either response is pointless and the appeal will be declined anyway.