Disabled Bay on private land

coraljo1

The parking companies rejection of our appeal stated we only have 28 days to submit a POPLA appeal, but as we are responding to that letter from the parking company it's unlikely that we will have our reply from them within the initial 28 days. Are POPla codes only valid for a specific time?

Redx

up to 33 days max, so DO NOT MISS getting that appeal in before the deadline , preferably not after day 30 and ideally by day 28

you can comment on the PPC evidence pack once the PPC has submitted it to popla, pointing out any errors or failures etc , this comes later in the popla process , after the PPC has seen your appeal

KeithP

coraljo1 wrote: »

Are POPla codes only valid for a specific time?

Yes.

Do not miss that window.

The_Deep

I really do not understand your reluctance to name the driver, it would kill it stone dead.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

Think we will respond to the appeal rejection letter in the first instance pointing out once again that the registered keeper was not the driver (which they seem to have missed but we think it,s quite relevant)

It is not relevant if the NTK was a postal one, received by day 14 after the event. If so, the rk can be held liable...unless the rk names & gives the postal addy of the driver.

I would send the letter I suggested.

Also do POPLA at the same time, and if you have named the driver (with address) first, this could be fun because you could start your POPLA appeal as keeper by saying that you CAN'T be held liable because that ceased to apply when the driver was named.

Just had an idea for a new POPLA tactic, in some cases. Name a driver/with address, as a response to the rejection letter, a week or two before the keeper then uses the POPLA code...hmmm...thoughts?

POPLA will not be able to say the rk is liable, and the PPC can't remove the POPLA window...

Umkomaas

Just had an idea for a new POPLA tactic, in some cases. Name a driver/with address, as a response to the rejection letter, a week or two before the keeper then uses the POPLA code...hmmm...thoughts?

POPLA will not be able to say the rk is liable, and the PPC can't remove the POPLA window...

That could be fun. Flush a few things out with that. POPLA won't know which way to turn, the majority of PPCs won't understand it, and the BPA put in a spin!

kryten3000

That is genius. I like it a lot.

Guys_Dad

This is simple. The driver is, in the first instance, liable. You tell the PPC who was driving and give them their address. They can then chase the driver but they will not pursue them if overseas.

However, this needs to be done within the timescales set out by POFA.

Why complicate things?



So give us some dates.

Date of incident
Date on NtK
Date you appealed etc

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

That could be fun. Flush a few things out with that. POPLA won't know which way to turn, the majority of PPCs won't understand it, and the BPA put in a spin!

We must remember this idea and try it in cases where naming the driver doesn't put them ultimately at risk (e.g. driver lives abroad).