POPLA pantomime marches on

In a decision recorded here on Pepipoo, POPLA upheld the appeal because the operator provided no evidence that the landowner could operate on the land. This was strange because the operator did provide evidence; it was a self created format though, and not in the style secretly created by the Lead Adjudicator and sent out with his May newsletter. Perhaps this was why the assessor did not recognise it.

The next day the motorist got a hasty note from POPLA saying the decision had been revisited. Presumably this was a result of a furious phone call from the operator. The Prankster wonders why the operators are allowed direct access to POPLA and to challenge results via this path. His own challenge to a POPLA result which did not consider all the evidence was sent 5 days ago and still has not had an acknowledgement, let alone be revisited.

Luckily for POPLA and the motorist, the decision was not change following the revisit, because the operator had not justified the pre-estimate of loss.

Still, this action by POPLA does show that motorists are perfectly within their rights to challenge the decision if POPLA has made a mistake in the process.

The Prankster considers that this is further evidence that POPLA is not independent. Complaints about decision should follow the same paths and timescales for both parties.

The Prankster also sees the irony in the situation where the decision can be revisited in one day while the original decision was 6 weeks late in arriving. POPLA timescales are all over the shop at the moment. The Prankster has one appeal coming up for 100 days, while another was adjudicated after 48 days. Two others, filed on the same day as the 48 day one, are still awaiting adjudication a week later. Perhaps The Prankster's cases go into a special holding pen, and ar only let out when all the staff are in full protective gear.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster