Popla refuse appeal

beamerguy

Redx wrote: »

seems to me this is not a POPLA decision , its a WHOPLA decision

therefore you would not be able to complain to the popla lead adjudicator about it because I dont think they were involved, like I clearly stated earlier

POPLA (ombudsman service) do not take this long to deal with appeals

if WH had declared a conflict of interest then the new popla would have taken over, which we have seen one or two it recently happened to

I agree with you, it is a WHOPLA failure yet again.
Let's not forget the failure of the BPA who created this rubbish
And then the ISPA who has failed the public/motorist who is no longer viable or credible. The BPA who finance the ISPA should cut their losses on this one as they are now useless

Let us hope the OP uploads a picture

Redx

agreed

if the decision has the name of the assessor , its popla

if there is no assessor name , its WHOPLA

jimmy9220

I don't have a scanner I'm afraid and my phone camera is blurry if there's some text you need in particular I can write what it says? Otherwise I'll need to scan it when I'm back at work on 20th

Thanks again

jimmy9220

The letter has an address of Po box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL. It has the popla logo, small blurry print at the bottom says their administered by the Ombudsman Service Limited. It's talks about the BPA code of practice and refers to sections in there, and is signed "Graham Davies" then 2 letters, 4 numbers, and forward slash and 3 numbers.

Hope this helps

Redx

in that case , complain to the lead assessor at popla that the decision is flawed due to clause #13 of the BPA CoP

read this for info on who , how , why etc

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5465649

see this case that won on an 11 minute overstay (grace periods , clause #13)

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106376&st=40&start=40

jimmy9220

You guys are literally the best. Best forum site ever! I will draft a response tomorrow and post here before sending for approval. Hopefully I can end this stress!

Thanks,

The_Deep

If this is overturned think about invoicing the PPC for you time. You may not get a penny, but it will cost them money to deal with it. Especially if you send a LBA.

Half_way

The_Deep wrote: »

If this is overturned think about invoicing the PPC for you time. You may not get a penny, but it will cost them money to deal with it. Especially if you send a LBA.

Sod that if you know who's car park it was then invoice the car park owner, and give them as much grief as possible, it is they who have taken on parking eye to act as their agents, therefore the owner are jointly and severally liable for the actions if their agents

Fruitcake

The_Deep wrote: »

If this is overturned think about invoicing the PPC for you time. You may not get a penny, but it will cost them money to deal with it. Especially if you send a LBA.

Half_way wrote: »

Sod that if you know who's car park it was then invoice the car park owner, and give them as much grief as possible, it is they who have taken on parking eye to act as their agents, therefore the owner are jointly and severally liable for the actions if their agents

Also post negative feedback about this on social media, as well as the local press.

" 'Landowner's' parking contractor fails to give grandmother enough time to read the small print and slaps her with a 100(?) quid charge."

(Insert name of landowner)

Half_way

" 'Landowner's' parking contractor fails to give grandmother enough time to read the small print and slaps her with a 100(?) quid charge."

Try
" 'Car park owner fails to give grandmother enough time to read the small print and slaps her with a 100(?) quid charge via their agents, parking eye

replace "car park owner" with name of actual owner, and if possible mention their corporate social responsibility policy/equal opportunities ( or whatever nonsense management bollcocks of that nature they have )