Unrest in the Parking industry, Upset from the inside - From Pepipoo

ABN

But will it cost the PPC £32 per appeal?

From the way I read it, the POPLA grounds for what they deem to be a valid reason are so limited and specific that 99.9% of appeals will be disallowed.

So if the appeal is deemed to be invalid and hence not put before the PPC will they still be charged??????

taffy056

ABN wrote: »

But will it cost the PPC £32 per appeal?

From the way I read it, the POPLA grounds for what they deem to be a valid reason are so limited and specific that 99.9% of appeals will be disallowed.

So if the appeal is deemed to be invalid and hence not put before the PPC will they still be charged??????

You will get a code from the ppc after a failed appeal that you use for a popla appeal, they I gather must give it to you unless they drop the charge, if they give you the code and you use it with popla it will cost them £32.40 automatically no matter if the appeal is pants. And it's binding on them if it goes for the driver. Or they must take the driver to court to recover the outlay should the driver ignore them afterwards.

bazster

I reckon we are going to see a lot more appeals allowed by the PPC's before getting to POPLA. If someone "appeals" to the PPC stating grounds that make it perfectly clear they have no intention of paying then the PPC would be mad to let it go to POPLA, they'd just be throwing away 30 quid for nothing.

ppc_guy

I think the first test will be any case which goes to court after 1st October. Everybody in the industry is being advised that if a motorist loses in the POPLA appeal then it is being advised to pursue immediately to court including the £32.40 as costs involved in recovery.

The Appeals report will then be used as evidence and as the IAS is required by legislation then it is hoped/felt that this will give some weight to a case.

Some companies will of course by default accept more appeals but some may be bloody minded and not change.

Another issue on POPLA from our point of view is that the motorist can write to us stating "I wish to appeal because i dont want to pay" which we reject. but then they can appeal to POPLA on totally different grounds.

But in all honesty nobody really has a clue what's going on. We have no real information from the BPA and POPLA haven't sent us anything either.
I would not be overly surprised if again some operators don't even know about POPLA at all. This will then be picked up on by the BPA and result no doubt in some silly amount of sanction points as a result of their own inabilities.

taffy056

Thing is ppc guy that even if they use the popla decision which is limited to only 4 appeal points, the small claims is not so limited, if someone didn't see the signs, or parked in a disabled bay because under the Equalities Act they are entitled to do so, they will likely to get off any trumped up charges. And in the small claims they would have to justify the £100 charge, how can a ppc honestly say this is their loss when they don't even own the car park ?

trisontana

The important phrase in the new BPA guidelines is the one saying that the only amount that can be claimed is the actual loss that's been suffered. That's the elephant in the room for PPCs.

ppc_guy

Taffy i don't really have an answer to that but the advice we are being given is that.
As per most info from the BPA its probably very misguided

taffy056

You seem to be level headed with this, but I said from the start that this will be an Achilles heal for companies, but people like Michael Perkins was coming here trumpeting this great RK liable thing and it will make him even more money, funny how he's not coming here now. I don't know which ppc you run or work for but I can see some going under with this.

ppc_guy

I work for one of the smaller fry whose name has only been mentioned on here once (But many times a company with an identical name just a location in brackets has been mentioned on here.

the initials are also the same as one of the larger companies operated by a much loved forum troll..

jkdd77

ppc_guy wrote: »

The Appeals report will then be used as evidence and as the IAS is required by legislation then it is hoped/felt that this will give some weight to a case.

The (not very) Independent Appeal Service is not directly required by legislation; Schedule 4 merely requires the PPC to tell the RK of any complaints procedure that actually exists:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
8(2)(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.

However, the setting up of POPLA was a requirement for 'RK liability' to be commenced, and remains a current DVLA requirement (via its requirement for ATA membership) in order to obtain RK details from the DVLA.