POPLA standards fall even lower

Castle

As reported by the "Parking Prankster":-
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/popla-competence-continues-on-downhill.html

beamerguy

Amy Smith the so called assessor makes POPLA look like imbeciles

Maybe she was trained by WHOPLA

fisherjim

If that were me I would write to the ppc and copy in the Muppets at POPLA and ask them to take me to court, so I could expose to a judge what a useless bunch of imbeciles and dozy scamming muppets they all are.

Fruitcake

The PPC had no cause to request keeper details. The DVLA had no cause to give them. Complaints to all of them, plus the BPA, PoPLA, Trading Standards, the local council, local MP, Mrs May, and local and national press are required to highlight this scam.

Half_way

Now i can post again...

If this was me then i would go full bore, doing everything outlined below:

Fruitcake wrote: »

The PPC had no cause to request keeper details. The DVLA had no cause to give them. Complaints to all of them, plus the BPA, PoPLA, Trading Standards, the local council, local MP, Mrs May, and local and national press are required to highlight this scam.

As well as a full on at the parking company, if this car park was or is attached to a store/landowner then the landowner who took the PPC on will need to feel the brunt of any action.
This would form an ultimatum, Tell the PPc that the decision made by POPLA is being rejected in its entirety, and as such the PPC should cancel the charge with immediate effect so as not to waste time, as no payment will be made without a court order

Should the PPC continue to pursue this matter then it will be charged at £19 per hour or part there of for each letter/item sent to the registered keeper demanding money

fisherjim

I see from streetview the PPC is the not so sharp NCP and the car park is for Cannons Park railway station so possibly comes under railway bye-laws too.

daveyjp

Love the statement that the motorist has failed to prove they were elsewhere, so they must have been parked in the car park!

Fools, but what do they have to lose? No doubt the contract they are obviously losing money on (eventually), but the £27 paid by the PPC is banked and now its over to the PPC to decide what to do.

Half_way

If the person to which this topic relates to is posting on here, then please come along.
As for proof of location, iPhones and Android phones have some sort of location history tracking built in whih could bbe used to show the Driver was elsewhere

Fruitcake

daveyjp wrote: »

Love the statement that the motorist has failed to prove they were elsewhere, so they must have been parked in the car park!

Fools, but what do they have to lose? No doubt the contract they are obviously losing money on (eventually), but the £27 paid by the PPC is banked and now its over to the PPC to decide what to do.

Half_way wrote: »

If the person to which this topic relates to is posting on here, then please come along.
As for proof of location, iPhones and Android phones have some sort of location history tracking built in whih could bbe used to show the Driver was elsewhere

But the PPC muppets have shown where the vehicle was, outside the car park.

yotmon

Half_way wrote: »

If the person to which this topic relates to is posting on here, then please come along.
As for proof of location, iPhones and Android phones have some sort of location history tracking built in whih could bbe used to show the Driver was elsewhere

The Popla adjudicator would probably argue that it only proves that the phone was in another place - not the driver.

Ralph-y

"The Popla adjudicator would probably argue that it only proves that the phone was in another place - not the driver."

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Oh dear Amy .... what have you done

Ralph:cool: