For the attention of Crabman

HO87

Retaining the existing strategy - ignoring has some merits I'd entirely agree. I have two concerns. Firstly, by doing so we would be playing directly into the BPA's hands by confirming the very argument they advanced to obtain RK liability. Secondly, and this is where I believe the new Act provides us with an opportunity it might be foolish to forego, a number of comparatively onerous procedures have been placed on PPC's one of which carries a direct cost for them. Having to follow those procedures will reduce their margins and will bog them down in admin. Some could well fall over, many will almost certainly !!!!-up and some might be tempted to tell lies. Irrespective of which route they follow the opportunity is to drag their feet to the fire that we have never had.

Just my take though.

Coupon-mad

I agree with HO87, we can't miss the chance to make the PPCs (AOS members only of course) have to pay out over £32 every time!

And to raise awareness within POPLA of what goes on in this 'industry' will be a real eye-opener for a service that is only used to Councils and their errors. As we all know, there's much more wrong with private fake PCNs and the actions of the PPCs than POPLA adjudicators will ever have come across to date.

bazster

Good point CM. The pen-pushers of POPLA will most likely be appalled at the behaviour they encounter.

taffy056

bazster wrote: »

Good point CM. The pen-pushers of POPLA will most likely be appalled at the behaviour they encounter.

I don't think we will have to many parked 1mm on a parking bay line, or the P&D ticket was the wrong way round on the dash. The reason is that they know it won't hold water so they will drop it rather than risk £32 IMO

bazster

taffy056 wrote: »

I don't think we will have to many parked 1mm on a parking bay line, or the P&D ticket was the wrong way round on the dash. The reason is that they know it won't hold water so they will drop it rather than risk £32 IMO

Lets hope so! If they have any sense they will grant any appeal where there is proof of payment or entitlement, regardless of whether the ticket fell on the floor.

HO87

taffy056 wrote: »

I don't think we will have to many parked 1mm on a parking bay line, or the P&D ticket was the wrong way round on the dash. The reason is that they know it won't hold water so they will drop it rather than risk £32 IMO

I think this is on the money. I think we'll see a starker division of PPC's with those who pursue appeals through POPLA and others that simply fold rather than incur additional expense. We shouldn't forget that the BPA have suggested that only 1% of invoices will be appealed and so dropping appeals at the company stage, the informal appeal, if you like, would not greatly impact their bottom line.

As for suggesting that POPLA might be shocked at what they see I'm afraid that's likely to be a forlorn and wistful hope. Given their staffing and the number of appeals they will have to process there will not be sufficient time to examine the detailed legal status of each case. A number of assumptions will have to be made and I suspect that they will argue that because cases coming to them will originate from AOS PPC's they can safely assume that the contractual underpinning is as it should be. All that would remain for them to do is to establish whether the motorist breached the putative contract.

In short, I doubt whether POPLA will be examining each case to see if it is VCS compliant, for example.

Coupon-mad

And yet the PATAS and TPT systems do have to establish that there's a relevant traffic order which shows the pursuing Council are the Enforcement Authority (among other things). Real adjudicators don't just assume that the Council has the right to enforce in a car park or street of course.

I am hoping that a similar point can be made re a PPC having no basis to pursue because they have no proprietary interest. It's a required hoop to jump though surely?

If they don't have to demonstrate a proprietary interest then what's to stop the PPC charging, AND the owner charging, AND the occupier charging (because they are all 'landholders')?

Surely the person presenting the case to POPLA about the 'Parking Charge' has to be the right person with the right basis established? Membership of the AOS can't be enough can it?

Although I know we are all discussing this blind at the moment.

Oldfatgrumpy

Do we know yet anything about the staffing structure/personnel sourcing etc for POPLA? Their website is a "watch this space" page at the moment.

HO87

Oldfatgrumpy wrote: »

Do we know yet anything about the staffing structure/personnel sourcing etc for POPLA? Their website is a "watch this space" page at the moment.

The outline budget (as detailed in the DVLA-prepared legislative impact assessment document - pre POFA 2012) is £740,000. Staff costings are set out at a total of just over £400,000 allowing for an adjudicator and 6 assessors. It was proposed that the entire budget would be raised by a one-off levy of £5,000 on each of the 148 members of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme but there is also provision for a per-appeal charge of £32.

The adjudicator, head of the service, has already been announced as barrister Henry Greenslade.

Fergie76

Wow, there are 148 members of the BPA AOS and yet on here we only hear of the same few companies over and over.