POPLA decision has incorrect/misleading info.

moon_dust

Hi

I'm hoping someone will be kind enough to offer advice.

To cut a long story, the registered keeper received a PCN from Britannia Parking in November 2018 for overstaying the maximum allowable time of 20 minutes in an ANPR car park. The keeper appealed on the basis of poor and badly illuminated signage. Britannia rejected appeal.

Keeper applied to POPLA and it was also rejected. However - POPLA's statement says clearly that the car park in question actually has 2 hours of free parking and not 20 minutes, as originally declared by Britannia. The driver stayed for 1 hour and 10 minutes.

Where does this leave the keeper? If POPLA are an adjudicator and they provide incorrect or misleading information, is their rejection still valid legally?

Any help/advice greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Umkomaas

POPLA appear to use templates, edited from other cases to save them typing out fresh adjudications. Looks like they didn't edit it sufficiently. Very sloppy proofreading on their part, but they're unlikely to change their decision.

A POPLA decision is merely an opinion as to whether the PCN was issued correctly. It has no legal authority and is not binding on the motorist.

It is for the PPC to decide whether they now wish to pursue the charge further, including through the small claims court.

moon_dust

Thanks for your reply.

I understand that POPLA's decision is their opinion. The bit I have issue with is that POPLA are Britannia's adjudicator and their decisions cannot be appealed. When their response is clearly contradictive and misleading, it does not strengthen their case; in fact the opposite in my opinion.

Is the keeper on steady ground to suggest that the POPLA decision is misleading and contradictory and therefore not accepted?

Is a PPC likely to take the keeper to court when there are flaws in their appeal system/documentation?

beamerguy

moon_dust wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

I understand that POPLA's decision is their opinion. The bit I have issue with is that POPLA are Britannia's adjudicator and their decisions cannot be appealed. When their response is clearly contradictive and misleading, it does not strengthen their case; in fact the opposite in my opinion.

Is the keeper on steady ground to suggest that the POPLA decision is misleading and contradictory and therefore not accepted?

Is a PPC likely to take the keeper to court when there are flaws in their appeal system/documentation?

POPLA are adjudicators for all BPA members, not just Britannia
POPLA have been making huge mistakes of late

Right now the motorist has become second best with no appeal service that can be trusted. The BPA should be upping their gain but they won't because they are dinosaurs just like POPLA

By all means complain and copy in Sir Greg Knight MP
We understand that coupled to the new code of practice, will be a new appeals service. Sir Greg needs to know who to avoid

PS: A judge will not take any notice of a POPLA decision

Umkomaas

The bit I have issue with is that POPLA are Britannia's adjudicator

Not clear what you mean. POPLA is an 'independent' organisation providing 'impartial' assessments of private parking charges. Yes, there are issues about how POPLA is funded, and there are inevitable questions about impartiality, especially from losing parties, but they don't 'act' on behalf Britannia (or any other PPC).

Have I understood what you are saying?

Is the keeper on steady ground to suggest that the POPLA decision is misleading and contradictory and therefore not accepted?

We often suggest that motorists write to the PPC to say that they reject the POPLA decision and will not be paying.

Is a PPC likely to take the keeper to court when there are flaws in their appeal system/documentation?

They don't make rational decisions on who they issue proceedings against, they bombard everyone with court claims as a means of ratcheting up the harassment, intimidation and pressure to get you to pay them through fear of court.

Maybe where the charge continues unpaid and the full court documentation starts to kick in, there might be some analysis to determine whether their grounds are less than solid, but (if I understand your case correctly), an apparent POPLA 'typo' wouldn't undermine their case.

moon_dust

beamerguy wrote: »

A judge will not take any notice of a POPLA decision

Thanks for your reply.

In particular with the statement you made above, I have a further question, if that's OK?

So if this does go to court, you are saying that the statement made by POPLA will not be considered at all? Even if the appellant is genuinely confused about what the actual terms of the parking 'contract' are?

I assumed that the purpose of a POPLA appeal is to clarify and confirm the case. In this instance they have confused matters. Their decision is final. This leaves the appellant with no other option than to pay the charge or go to court. This seems very wrong to me.

Please forgive my naivety with this; it is uncommon ground.

nosferatu1001

If you want to introduce teh POPLA appeal into the defnece, thats your choice. Similarly, if they want to introduce this as a claimants point, tehy can do so.

Im not sure where else you think this would appear from? The court only looks at whats put in front of it, nothign more.

Their decision CAN be challenged, and HAS been in the past. Lead asessor. Search.
You dont "go to court". THe PPC takes you there. Diference in action.
You only action is to pay
Your only other inaction is to not pay.
Thats it.

Umkomaas

So if this does go to court, you are saying that the statement made by POPLA will not be considered at all? Even if the appellant is genuinely confused about what the actual terms of the parking 'contract' are?

It's not as black and white as that. What a court considers will depend from Judge to Judge. THE POPLA 'error' is not a showstopper for you, neither as a reason for the court to find for or against you, nor as a legal technicality to kill off the case.

This leaves the appellant with no other option than to pay the charge or go to court.

Not necessarily correct. Whether the case gets to a court stage depends entirely on the PPC. Even if it does, we help here with defending cases and have an unrivalled success rate.

In preparation for any potential court claim, I suggest you do some advance reading of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 which details how to deal with a court claim against you.

But you will not be defending on the POPLA typo. Forget that, it's not helping you see beyond.

moon_dust

Umkomaas wrote: »

Not clear what you mean. POPLA is an 'independent' organisation providing 'impartial' assessments of private parking charges. Yes, there are issues about how POPLA is funded, and there are inevitable questions about impartiality, especially from losing parties, but they don't 'act' on behalf Britannia (or any other PPC).

Have I understood what you are saying?

Apologies - I probably didn't explain myself too well there. The point I intended to make is that the POPLA decision should be factually correct and clear. If they are legitimately verifying the PPC's claim and deciding whether or not they can proceed to harass the keeper, should they not be held accountable? Instead they state that their decision is final. This leaves the appellant confused and with no options other than to pay the fine or go to court.

We often suggest that motorists write to the PPC to say that they reject the POPLA decision and will not be paying.

The keeper has actually done this and the PPC has conceded that POPLA made an error. Although they are still upholding their case.

They don't make rational decisions on who they issue proceedings against, they bombard everyone with court claims as a means of ratcheting up the harassment, intimidation and pressure to get you to pay them through fear of court.

Maybe where the charge continues unpaid and the full court documentation starts to kick in, there might be some analysis to determine whether their grounds are less than solid, but (if I understand your case correctly), an apparent POPLA 'typo' wouldn't undermine their case.

In a nutshell, this basically answers my ultimate question. If a POPLA type/error does not undermine their case, the appellant is back to the original appeal points. Which by the way seem very legitimate.

We really don't need the hassle, so hopefully it wont happen, but if does end up in court, I think the keeper has a very good case. Hopefully the judge will agree!

Umkomaas

In a nutshell, this basically answers my ultimate question. If a POPLA type/error does not undermine their case, the appellant is back to the original appeal points. Which by the way seem very legitimate.

Good to have a positive stance and belief. PPCs don't like people to take up a firm position against them, being institutionalised bullies, they much prefer cowering wimps.

We really don't need the hassle, so hopefully it wont happen, but if does end up in court, I think the keeper has a very good case. Hopefully the judge will agree!

Glad you seem up for the fight. In the main (but there have been exceptions), Judges aren't fools.

If court papers are issued, the more you fight via a well prepared and solid defence, subsequent well written Witness Statement and strong evidence, the more likely they will back off.

Do a forum search on keywords 'Britannia BWL discontinuation' to read cases that are coming to light. You could also substitute 'Britannia' with 'NCP' who have also recently jumped into bed with BWL in issuing court claims (pressure tactic as described by me above) on an industrial scale.

HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:

Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.

beamerguy

moon_dust wrote: »

I assumed that the purpose of a POPLA appeal is to clarify and confirm the case. In this instance they have confused matters. Their decision is final. This leaves the appellant with no other option than to pay the charge or go to court. This seems very wrong to me.

Please forgive my naivety with this; it is uncommon ground.

If POPLA were to have professional assessors, you would be right but, that is far from the case. Just be glad that their decision can be ignored by you as it is not legally binding