"independent" appeals service, post Oct 2012

Rover_Driver

So you appeal to the PPC, they refuse it, you then appeal to the 'independent' appeals service, if they refuse it, it reverts back to the old PPC system of debt collectors and pretend solicitors, and it either fizzles out, or they try court and it gets thrown out.

What is the point of an 'independent' appeals service , apart from costing the PPCs money :j?

Stephen_Leak

Rover_Driver wrote: »

So you appeal to the PPC, they refuse it, you then appeal to the 'independent' appeals service, if they refuse it, it reverts back to the old PPC system of debt collectors and pretend solicitors, and it either fizzles out, or they try court and it gets thrown out.

What is the point of an 'independent' appeals service , apart from costing the PPCs money :j?

I never expected there to be a "point" from the victims' point of view.

And just how are the PPCs going to pay? Who are they going to pay? Will they really pay anything to anyone?

Dublindel

That's how it reads, pathetic, but at least the PPC has to spend £ 27 for the appeal that u launch before they can harass you. Oh joy.

Dublindel

I am using my phone so can't publish his response but can email it

BASFORDLAD

Dublindel wrote: »

I am using my phone so can't publish his response but can email it

Sent you my email address

ManxRed

They'll be paying themselves £27 won't they?

Dublindel

Sent email to you. Delete my name and publish, cheers

Dublindel

It's just not logical is it! It now cost the PPC big time. I must be missing something

BASFORDLAD

Dear ******

The sequence of events following receipt of a ticket would be that a person makes representations to the operator of the parking on the private land. If those representations were not accepted, the person would have the opportunity to make an appeal to new Appeal Service. If the Appeals service decided the ticket was valid then the person would have to pay the ticket. If the person failed to pay the ticket, the operator could pursue them for the debt in the usual way. The use of debt collectors at an earlier stage would not be possible.

Stephen Benton | Programme Director, Transport & Mobilit

HO87

One is tempted to suggest that the primary motive in London Councils' proposal to operate this scheme is because they believe that they can make money at it and for no other reason. Presumably, those former LA parking wonks who appear to dominate the upper floors of BPA Towers have called in a favour to get Steve Benton and his chums to take this on. After all, it has to be up and running by October or registered keeper liability will lie dormant awaiting a Secretary of State's sign off before becoming active.

The issue of the figures supplied by the BPA to the DVLA (albeit they now claim that it was simply an estimate) which were used as part of the legislative impact assessment and undoubtedly weighed heavy in Parliament's decision to provide the registered keeper liability clause, should also be emphasised. Even if we were to accept the BPA's recent assertions as to the provenance of the figures their being so grossly wide of the mark must seriously call into question the BPA's ability to assess - in a meaningful way - what is going on in the private parking world. This is especially so when one considers that no health warning was attached to the figures at the time they were given to the DVLA or at least no such caveat found its way into the impact assessment document. The error is particularly astonishing given that registered keeper liability had been a goal (as part of the so-called 'alignment' of the private and local authority parking enforcement processes) that the BPA had been impressing on government for some years to such a degree that it could have been described as a core objective (as part of the overall alignment process).

So important was this, or at least that is what the BPA had been saying for sometime that one might reasonably expect the BPA to have had a detailed analysis to hand or at least one that could have been prepared at short notice. Instead, it seems, someone from Haywards Heath simply licked their finger and stuck it in the air. Why was this?

Mr Benton should also be pointed towards the presentation given by Martin Cutts at the parking summit a couple of weeks ago. He should also be told that a substantial part of that presentation was refused publication in the BPA's own in-house rag - even though they had solicited it in the first place.