POPLA Decisions

scamdodger

Apologies.
I thought it appropriate to post here because I have had an unsuccessful POPLA decision (referenced my own thread) and I note from post #3003 that someone else is in a similar position regarding making a complaint.

Chris_Oliver

After all this site's help and a successful appeal I recive this nonsense from POPLA today.
I've asked on what grounds and for their Terms of Reference. But, can they do this?
Any help provided VERY gratefully rec'd. Thanks.

"Dear Chris Oliver,

We have received correspondence from the operator who has claimed that a procedural error has occurred.

I have reviewed the assessor’s decision and I consider that a procedural error may have occurred, which may change the outcome of the initial decision reached.

As such, I will complete a full review of your case and respond to you within the next 10 working days. It is important to note that financial recompense will not be awarded if a procedural error is identified and my review may not change the outcome of the decision.
Yours sincerely
Amy Smith
POPLA Complaints Team"

Umkomaas

'Procedural Error' is the only route for anyone (motorist or PPC) to try to persuade POPLA to review a decision. Whoever goes down this route must be able to show POPLA where they think that POPLA has erred. It is not the opportunity for a rant because the appeal decision was not as desired.

You need to watch on what basis the PPC is arguing this. They should not be allowed to submit new (or extra) evidence, but I'm a bit concerned that they might be trying this, especially as the POPLA decision said this:

The burden of proof rests with the operator to show that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. As the operator has not provided insufficient evidence to POPLA of the appellant's vehicle parked on site without a valid permit clearly on display, I cannot determine whether they have breached the terms and conditions of the car park.Therefore, I can only conclude that the parking charge was issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

But it may be they're chancing arguing the case on the basis of the assessor's daft double negative:

As the operator has not provided insufficient evidence

Why not respond to Amy Smith and ask on what basis the PPC is arguing that a 'procedural error' has occurred. Make sure that she knows you are not prepared to let them quietly side with the PPC, just because they've made a fuss.

Chris_Oliver

Thank you ever so!
This was my earlier response;

"Dear Amy, thank you for your email dated 26 April 2018.
Would you be kind enough to advise the nature of this possible procedural error, please. Additionally would you be kind enough to let me have a copy of your Terms of Reference that apply to this matter.
Thank you in advance of your assistance.
Kind regards
Chris Oliver"

Should I also seek to understand EXACTLY on what terms the operator can apply for a procedural review?
TBH I was very prepared to attend Court to fight this, so this will only help. It makes the whole system look incompetent.

Umkomaas

Should I also seek to understand EXACTLY on what terms the operator can apply for a procedural review?

I doubt POPLA is going to tell you, so don't lose any sleep over it - it's unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

TBH I was very prepared to attend Court to fight this, so this will only help. It makes the whole system look incompetent.

You're unlikely to meet the Judge you so desperately seem to wish!

http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Parking_Ticketing.html

https://padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203631441-Parking-Ticketing-Ltd

Coupon-mad

Dear Chris Oliver,

We have received correspondence from the operator who has claimed that a procedural error has occurred.

I have reviewed the assessor's decision and I consider that a procedural error may have occurred, which may change the outcome of the initial decision reached.

As such, I will complete a full review of your case and respond to you within the next 10 working days. It is important to note that financial recompense will not be awarded if a procedural error is identified and my review may not change the outcome of the decision.

Yours sincerely

Amy Smith
POPLA Complaints Team

The review 'may' or 'may not' change the decision? Clear as mud.

scamdodger

Although the decision could potentially now go against Chris Oliver, at least it gives some hope to people like me that POPLA do respond to complaints about procedural errors.
I'm currently complaining to POPLA (see my previous posts) and await a response.
With the ever increasing number of parking tickets issued (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327) and presumably POPLA appeals mounted, I wonder if the workload is overwhelming them, or maybe some assessors are cutting corners.

beamerguy

Chris_Oliver wrote: »

Thank you ever so!
This was my earlier response;

"Dear Amy, thank you for your email dated 26 April 2018.
Would you be kind enough to advise the nature of this possible procedural error, please. Additionally would you be kind enough to let me have a copy of your Terms of Reference that apply to this matter.
Thank you in advance of your assistance.
Kind regards
Chris Oliver"

Should I also seek to understand EXACTLY on what terms the operator can apply for a procedural review?
TBH I was very prepared to attend Court to fight this, so this will only help. It makes the whole system look incompetent.

Good letter, it has become clear that POPLA are indeed
incompetent but they do work hand in hand with the BPA
who are also incompetent

It is supposed to be a final decision which is binding
on both parties.
POPLA was not set up to allow a BPA scammer to change
the rules.

As members here will remember, the BPA gave the title
of POPLA to Wright Hassall solicitors which turned out to
be the biggest c*ck up in the great parking scam.

It's sad, the BPA/POPLA has degraded itself to the very
low level of the Gladstones/IPC/IAS scam

It's a complete scam industry that has ended up with
government getting involved because the BPA lost control
and the BPA are still running around like headless chickens

CharlieJB

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
XXXXXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the driver exceeded the paid for parking session.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the amount of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant does not believe that the operator has applied reasonable grace periods in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue PCNs at this site. The appellant has questioned the accuracy and reliability of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. To support the appeal, the appellant has provided POPLA with a PDF document containing an expansion of his grounds for appeal, which he submitted to the operator. Additionally, the appellant has provided a copy of the operator’s rejection letter.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. From both the operator’s case file and the appellant’s narrative in his POPLA appeal, I can see that the registered keeper of the vehicle is <Lease company>. The operator has acknowledged that Mr XXX is the hirer of the vehicle. Paragraph 4 (1) of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) states: “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. Section 13 (2) goes on to state that: “the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement". As such, Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the Notice to Hirer. The operator has failed to provide a copy of the relevant documents in its evidence to POPLA. As a result, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012. I therefore conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal. However, as I have had to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.

beamerguy

Good news CharlieJB

Who is the parking company please