But then you lure the charge and win so a few cheers seem to be in order… Well not if you are driver Donald David and the bum keep away from he says he got from Popla, the independent disputes resolution service liable for judging appeals on private land.
The blunder it made led to it having to conduct a sharp U-turn even though its website states all decisions are settled. So Donald turned into the guilty rty, with his appeal renounced out and a charge to y.
But another blow was heading his way as Popla’s technical system dead ducks meant he wasn’t kept in the loop properly.
Dad Donald, an airline proletarian from west London, felt very aggrieved and told Crusader: “It’s been ndemonium but it never seems to occur to them to show any leniency because of their confuse withs. For weeks I’ve never known where I stood or what had changed. Had I turned in that way with them they would not have put up with it. This is unbalanced and most unfair.”
Donald received his rking notice last October and unfaltering to challenge it even though it risked the penalty rising from £60 to £100 if he strayed.
“I did not see any sign when I stopped to drop my family off,” he says.
After the rking practitioner rejected his appeal he sent evidence via Popla’s website in November and the train driver followed with its submission three weeks later.
Donald believes: “In February I got an email from Popla saying a decision had been reached. It referred me to its online portal where it voiced my appeal had been successful.”
But three weeks later he was emailed to say the for fear of the fact was being reassessed. “Immediately after, I got another message telling me the probe had ended and to check the portal,” he adds. “I logged on and saw my appeal was still eminent.”
But in mid-April Donald was astonished to get a letter from the operator warning him Popla had disallowed his appeal and he had to y £100 quickly or face court proceedings.
“However Popla’s portal was undisturbed showing I had won,” he protests. “On April 21 it called to clarify its decision, saying demonstrate had been ‘overlooked’ and mistakes were possible.
“On the 26th I got a letter but there was a lot of laver and references to another case going through the High Court.
“It also suggested that ‘although the charge might not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the signage at the spot was clear’ so I lost. I felt it did not account for how I’d been dealt with so I groused and got a debt collector’s demand for £160.”
Only late last month did he get an email from Popla with a clearer definition.
“I want this nightmare to end but I don’t believe I owe them £160,” he says. “And when I told them alongside the technical problems they just didn’t seem bothered. This concern has been going on for more than 155 days.”
On the service’s regularly asked questions ge it states that motorists can complain respecting the service.
A spokeswoman said: “If our actions have caused a direct pecuniary detriment to a customer then we do look to put that right.”
But no immediate latitude for Donald who must spend more time compiling a complaint, sustaining the dates he received Popla’s communications.
Popla told him its mistake was a one-off. Keep on Friday he checked its portal again. The date was correct, “but my appeal was in addition showing it was successful,” he says.