You have to remember who the POLPA paymasters are.
Donald Rumsfeld, "Clarity is exactly what we are trying to avoid."
The POPLA response is deliberately incoherent as they don't want to provide specific details on the reasoning behind the parking operator's decision to pull out of the case.
This behaviour has a multitude of advantages from their perspective.
Mainly, POPLA can never be accused of being in receipt (and subsequent acknowledgement) of 'facts' which might have a bearing on future cases - take this case as an example - what happens if they get an appeal for the same location tomorrow? If POPLA acknowledged (or were even made aware) that the location is in fact a public road then they'd have to find against the parking operator again and again.
So they are EXTEREMLY careful to ensure that each and every case is kept strictly as an individual stand alone case - that way the parking operator can carry on dishing out dodgy PCNs in the knowledge that a large percentage of them will continued to get paid by unsuspecting motorists.
And today the FoI request was answered with a ton of documents which basically show that the location is not private land, which is why PPS have gone scuttling off.
If you want the FoI info so that you can now sue PPS for their unlawful breach of your GDPR and to also get back at them with a formal DVLA complaint that could see them suspended from the KADOE contract, then PM me with an email address I can forward it to.
Like x 1
View List
Agree x 1
View List