Parking Eye and POPLA

trisontana

It seems that Parking Eye are now throwing in the towel time-after-time when a case goes to POPLA and they don't even bother to submit documents. So the big question must be asked - if PE are caving in so easily then surely that's an admission that they should never have issued the ticket in the first place? I wonder if the BPA Ltd have any thoughts on this (don't laugh!)?

Redx

I agree apart from the fact that they seem to now be issuing more court documents and some are within 2 months of a contravention that wasnt appealed against

so it goes from being ignored to a court case within 2 months, so instead of appealing the popla cases they now go straight for the jugular

they really dont make any sense in their processes

they are now issuing statements to forum aided appeals where they refute the threats of future invoices if the person wins at popla , when they refuse to cancel

not sure if they are smoking illegal substances in their legal dept and then maybe phoning people up in their sleep like last week

ColliesCarer

Do you think this may be about statistics clocked up on POPLA losses?
- a no show doesn't generate a loss and especially doesn't generate a loss on no GPEOL
- they refuse to cancel but issue the code
- sweep up those that don't then appeal
- wait to see what sort of appeal comes in from those that do
- then only bother responding if an appeal looks naive & easily winnable

Stroma

No, a no show must generate a win because it is put in front of assessor. They just don't want to bother because they know they cannot win.

da_rule

I'm surprised that rather than just no sowing they don't just cancel the ticket when they receive the POPLA appeal details. This way the PCN is cancelled and the appeal is cancelled, so therefore probably wouldn't show as a loss.

4consumerrights

Possible reasons:

Forum aided appeals bound to win - no point in trying - must be this VENDETTA.

Attempting to lick their wounds and redesign business model - more creative accounting skills required. (after all the BPA did announce POPLA coaching sessions - 5th March workshops)

They must be saving a lot of money on photocopying and paper by not submitting evidence - Gosh yes they can reduce the cost of their parking charges by at least half now and save at least one forest a year!

ampersand

Anyone up for a new 'Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss' Competititon?

Creative definition [STRIKE]allowed[/STRIKE]mandatory. Winning entries will be immortalised in BPA Best Practice Fine Print and automatically considered for next year's Awards:
http://www.britishparkingawards.co.uk/2014/shortlist.php

Best New Car Park
Best Car Park Refurbishment
The Parking Technology Award
Best Car Park Operation
Customer Service Award
The International Award
Young Parking Professional Award
Parking Person of the Year
Parking Team of the Year
Parking Partnerships Award
Cycle Parking Award

###

Apologies trisontana - I just hi-jacked your Thread and did not read NEWBIES Sticky first.

hoohoo

One other possibility is that strong appeals also require PE to supply a witness statement.

Each witness statement 'costs' PE in terms of customer satisfaction. The idea was that they (landowner) could lie back and let PE do all the work. If they are continually having to sign landowner witness statements then this rather defeats the object, especially if that statement contains dubious phrases they would rather not lend their signature to.

Perhaps if they know they will lose on GPEOL there is no point in bothering the landowner for a witness statement...especially if the landowner follows up with PE to see how the POPLA appeal went

bod1467

If PE are caving in to obvious forum-aided POPLA appeals, why don't they take the pragmatic approach and accept obvious forum-aided initial appeals and cancel those PCNs?

Coupon-mad

A lot of them do, it's been reported a few times now, when people have used the template in the NEWBIES thread.