POPLA adjourn's all Byelaw cases

dr1981_2

Morning All,

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but I received the following email from POPLA, advising they are adjourning all Byelaw cases whilst they 'consider their position'. Interested to see the outcome!

Good Morning,

POPLA has decided to adjourn all cases on which the parking operator has asked the motorist to make a payment in respect of alleged breach of Byelaws. This is following complaints to POPLA and ISPA that POPLA has no authority to look at these appeals. We are considering our position and will contact you again in due course.
Your case concerns Byelaws and is affected by the adjournment. During this time, you do not need to take any further action.

We do not anticipate the cases to be adjourned for more than two months from today. Parking operators should not pursue payment while the cases are adjourned

Kind Regards,

pappa_golf

was "upto" 2 mths as of the 1st September


"POPLA has decided to adjourn all cases on which the parking operator has asked the motorist to make a payment in respect of alleged breach of Byelaws. This is following complaints to POPLA and ISPA that POPLA has no authority to look at these appeals. We are considering our position and will make a further statement in due course. We do not anticipate the cases to be adjourned for more than two months from 1 September 2016. Parking operators should not pursue payment while the cases are adjourned. During this period, motorists must still submit their appeal within 28 days of the date of the POPLA code if they want POPLA to consider their appeal. If you have already submitted your appeal you do not need to take further action"


http://popla.co.uk/


looks like its being extended , now when will the IPC consider this?




beware flying pigs






if POPLa rule that bylaw offences cannot be tried , and determine "what" is a bylaw offence , then the IPC "should" act as per there code of conduct


9. Byelaws
9.1 It is your responsibility to establish whether any land upon which you operate is
subject to any Byelaws. Where land is subject to Byelaws you must ensure that your
practices are in accordance with them or, alternatively, that you operate a scheme that
is not prohibited by them.

trisontana

I don't know why there are still faffing around . It's an open and shut case. If they are going down the by-laws road, then only magistrates courts can decide, and only the land-owner can bring the case. It's got nothing to do with civil law and the County Court at all.

Coupon-mad

trisontana wrote: »

I don't know why there are still faffing around . It's an open and shut case. If they are going down the by-laws road, then only magistrates courts can decide, and only the land-owner can bring the case. It's got nothing to do with civil law and the County Court at all.

Agreed - surely the conclusion will be that POPLA should never have said they would handle byelaws cases and they will scurry away from them. This will leave people with the simple advice to delay the first appeal as long as possible, put up with future begging letters and let the case time out over six months.

Those currently on hold are laughing as every day gets them closer to the six months.

trisontana

This from a notice at Newark Castle station put up by East Midlands Trains :-

This area is subject to Bylaw 14

A charge of £70 (reduced to £35 if paid within 14 days applies):-


Then it goes on about the various infringements that will attract this “charge”, followed by the statement:-

“Maxiumum charge £1000.00”


Then it states :-


Photographic images may be obtained of vehicles not complying with this bylaw. Charge notices may be served by post by obtaing registered vehicle keeper's details from the DVLA


So a complete mish-mash of contract and criminal law. And where does that £1000.00 come from?

Herzlos

Presumably even if POPLA rejects an appeal, it'd have to go to the magistrates court anyway, so I don't see why they *couldn't* handle them.

Just because they are so slow, POPLA handling them will almost inevitably allow them to time out. So I'd be all for POPLA taking them on as it can't hurt the consumer/victim in these cases.

bargepole

trisontana wrote: »

... So a complete mish-mash of contract and criminal law. And where does that £1000.00 come from?

£1,000 is the maximum fine that the Magistrates can impose if a defendant is convicted under the byelaws.

So as others have said, the strategy should be to delay everything until the statutory 6 months from date of alleged offence has passed, at which point the Train Operating Company will have timed out on any opportunity to bring a criminal prosecution.

trisontana

bargepole wrote: »

£1,000 is the maximum fine that the Magistrates can impose if a defendant is convicted under the byelaws.

If so, then shouldn't that notice read "Maximum Penalty" or "Maximum Fine" and not call it a "charge"?

Boggy0220

I was aware of thIs announcement but it's rather strange that I have not been informed of this adjournment by POPLA, especially as a case I'm dealing with is very much related to railway land, relevant land and Byelaws. The last correspondence I had from POPLA was to tell me that they had received the PPC evidence pack and that I should respond in seven days if I wished to make comment on what had been supplied. Maybe they know something that I don't and maybe the adjudication will be dealt with swiftly...

pappa_golf

maybe they cannot see your reference to bylaws

Boggy0220

Good grief! It was the first thing on the list! If they can't see that, then we're doomed... ��