Failed my POPLA appeal against Parking Eye...

4consumerrights

Before the local government obudsman will consider any complaint the formal complaints procedure by the specific council in question must be exhausted.

Both POPLA and London Councils are trying to renege on their legal responsibilities for handling any complaints surrounding private parking charges.

The London Councils website contracdictory states that they consider complaints about unsatisfactory level of service or quality of service etc, but then states they cannot handle complaints about POPLA.

POPLA's website states that misconduct by any assessor will be dealt with by the Adujudicator but complaints made about the quality of service will be dealt with by London Councils.

London Councils are contracted to carry out POPLA and therefore it is their responsibility that the service is carried out legally, fairly and effectively.

I would complain simultaneously to both the POPLA complaints departement and the London Councils, making sure that the latters clearly states
"Letter of Complaint - Quality of Service and failure to observe applicable legal protocols"

A further letter of complaint could also go the the Secretary of State for local councils, Eric Pickles MP.

Essingeviken

Who gets the proceeds from PCN's. Is it the operator or the landowner?

4consumerrights

Essingeviken wrote: »

Who gets the proceeds from PCN's. Is it the operator or the landowner?

The operator gets the majority of the proceeds however they often offer their services free to the landowner with the bribe (cash incentive of a percentage of the takings)

Read this thread I started:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4789425

contrarymary1972

Well the golf club have replied saying they have no authority over Parking Eye, who lease the land from them, but that they will: "forward a copy of your email to Parkingeye asking them to remove the charge issued to you however I must stress again that the final decision is made by them."

I'll let you know if this works. Parking Eye have failed, as yet, to respond to the complaint I sent them.

Hovite_2

contrarymary1972 wrote: »

Well the golf club have replied saying they have no authority over Parking Eye, who lease the land from them, but that they will: "forward a copy of your email to Parkingeye asking them to remove the charge issued to you however I must stress again that the final decision is made by them."

I'll let you know if this works. Parking Eye have failed, as yet, to respond to the complaint I sent them.

Rubbish - so the golf club are claiming a lease agreement with Parking Eye ? Ask to see it. That is nothing but the dogs do dars !

Umkomaas

contrarymary1972 wrote: »

Well the golf club have replied saying they have no authority over Parking Eye, who lease the land from them, but that they will: "forward a copy of your email to Parkingeye asking them to remove the charge issued to you however I must stress again that the final decision is made by them."

I'll let you know if this works. Parking Eye have failed, as yet, to respond to the complaint I sent them.

I find that to be a remarkable statement, first I've heard of PE leasing land?

The golf club also seem to be confusing 'no authority' and 'no control'!

zzzLazyDaisy

And of course if PE are leasing the land for the purpose of running their "parking management" business they have presumably registered the business with the Valuation Office and are paying Business Rates to the Local Authority....

Umkomaas

OP, with Daisy' opinion on this approach first, write to the golf club questioning their statement about the land being leased to PE. Tell them that as things stand this could well be heading to court.

Would they please confirm in writing that the land is leased to PE as you will require a 'Statement of Truth' from them as part of your defence against this charge.

Please wait to see if Daisy wishes to comment first.

They're obviously getting a good bit of flak as a result of having PE around, and if they're going to be trotting out potentially incorrect statements as fob-off lines, then we should be shooting them one across their bows.

zzzLazyDaisy

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure about this. May I suggest we think about this for a day or two and knock it around?

The reason for my hesitation is the 'law of unintended consequences'.

Let's just say for a moment that the golf club stick to its statement that the land is leased to PE.

Does that make PE the landholder?
If it does, then would they be akin to NPC?
In other words, they wouldn't need the landholder's authority to levy charges and pursue claims because they would be the landholder?

NOTE: I don't know the answer to these questions, which is why I am asking.

However it seems to me that there is a possibility of us shooting defendants in the foot by chasing this hare down an alley, by potentially removing the 'no contract' plank of appeal/defence - or at least making it a lot more messy.

Now some of you regulars may come along and tell me I've lost the plot. That's okay, I have broad shoulders

I just want to be clear where we might be heading with this.

Daisy

Folkiedave

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure about this. May I suggest we think about this for a day or two and knock it around?

The reason for my hesitation is the 'law of unintended consequences'.

Let's just say for a moment that the golf club stick to its statement that the land is leased to PE.

Does that make PE the landholder?
If it does, then would they be akin to NPC?
In other words, they wouldn't need the landholder's authority to levy charges and pursue claims because they would be the landholder?

NOTE: I don't know the answer to these questions, which is why I am asking.

However it seems to me that there is a possibility of us shooting defendants in the foot by chasing this hare down an alley, by potentially removing the 'no contract' plank of appeal/defence - or at least making it a lot more messy.

Now some of you regulars may come along and tell me I've lost the plot. That's okay, I have broad shoulders

I just want to be clear where we might be heading with this.

Daisy

FWIW I suspect this is a fob off from the Golf Club. But if it isn't then PE must be paying the rates on it I would have thought.

A request to the valuation office would be a start. (I'd be tempted to copy that to the Golf Club too!)

but again these are thoughts.

We may lose the advantage of "no contract" but they still have to get through the GPEOL. And pay rates on the premises!!