New parking regulations at home...

Daniel_san

Thank you to you both. IIRC, the davey case was the guy who sued the parking company for trespass, right? His space was marked on his deeds, where mine is only allocated and not part of my property, so I don't think it applies sadly. Thank you though

There hasn't been an AGM since the RTM company was formed. I've requested it several times and keep being told there isn't one planned at this time...

I'm just doing some research before I write my POPLA. Will keep the thread updated.

Thank again

Daniel_san

Could someone please scan their eyes over this POPLA appeal and let me know if it's ok, or needs changing etc. I would massively appreciate it, thank you in advance.

POPLA Code: XXXXXXXX

28th August 2015


Dear POPLA,


I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXX XXX and I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.

1) No contract in place
2) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
3) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
4) False claim of land ownership

Explained below:

1) No contract in place
The car park is free to use for residents. I have a lease which does not require any vehicle parked therein to display any permit issued by any company. There is no contract between any driver or vehicle owner, and UK Parking Solutions. UK Parking Solutions’ attempts to change the terms of my lease by erecting signs within the car park, giving parking “conditions” are unlawful and null and void, no such contract and conditions have been agreed to, nor will they be.


2) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

UK Parking Solutions lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, as they are seeking. Nor do they have the legal status at that site which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis.

I put UK Parking Solution to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.


3) The charge of £100 is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore not enforceable.

I require UK Parking Solutions to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular area and for this particular "contravention". UK Parking Solutions cannot lawfully include its operational day-to-day running costs (e.g. provision of signs and parking enforcement) in any "loss" claimed. Not only are those costs tax-deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that area, the cost of parking "enforcement" such as it is would still remain the same.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss."

4) False claim of land ownership
In rejecting my appeal, UK Parking solutions state “the driver’s use of our private land”. The land is not owned by UK Parking Solutions so they should not knowingly make such false claims.

In summary, aside from there being no keeper liability whatsoever, UK Parking Solutions are attempting to enforce a punitive charge for an alleged contravention of a contract which could not have been made. I respectfully request therefore, that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Yours faithfully

bod1467

I think you're too late to place an actual appeal*. All you can do is register your intent to appeal.

*POPLA from London Councils is being replaced by Ombudsman Services soon, so POPLA aren't taking new appeals - merely the registration of intent to appeal.

Daniel_san

I only got the letter with code yesterday and this is the 1st I've seen this info. Where did that come from?

EDIT: OK I see that a change is coming from Oct 1st. Once someone has given me some feedback on the above text, I'll submit as normal and see what happens.

Northlakes

Have a look at the POPLA website where this information is now detailed.
The Ombudsman Service is now taking over appeals previously considered by POPLA.

http://www.popla.org.uk/update.htm

Daniel_san

To me, that just means that the company providing the POPLA service is changing. It doesn't mean POPLA is changing or that the appeals process is any different. It's just being handled by someone else from Oct 1st.

enfield_freddy

Daniel_san wrote: »

To me, that just means that the company providing the POPLA service is changing. It doesn't mean POPLA is changing or that the appeals process is any different. It's just being handled by someone else from Oct 1st.

correct , just a new supplier of services , hopefully up to speed.


however its been stated that the old staff will move to the new supplier (tuped?)

Daniel_san

I found this article from October 2014 that kind of explains what's happened and why there is a change (although the contract is due to expire anyway, the allegation/situation can't have helped).

https://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/parking_review/news/?ID=39532

London Councils defends handling of POPLA contract

PwC raises concerns over deal with BPA in draft annual audit of government body
Deniz Huseyin

London Councils has defended itself after auditors raised concerns over the handling of its contract to operate an appeals service for parking on private land, which it was awarded by the British Parking Association (BPA).

PwC raised its concerns about the legality of the contract in its draft annual audit for the year ending 31 March 2014.

PwC states that, having taken independent legal advice, it concluded that London Councils’ transport and environment committee (TEC) did not have the legal powers to enter into the contract with the BPA.

The auditor also draws attention to a potential conflict of interest arising from Nick Lester, London Council’s corporate director of services, also being a director of the BPA at the time the contract was signed in October 2012. It flags this up as a “related parties parking relationship”.

However, London Councils has dismissed suggestions that Nick Lester’s role represented a conflict of interests. “There is no conflict of interest because Nick Lester is not a member of London Councils’ decision-making body, the transport and environment committee,” A London Councils spokesman told Parking Review. “Nick Lester was not a member of the BPA’s relevant decision-making board and absented himself from other discussions on the matter.”

PwC was required to scrutinise the contract after an objection was raised in September 2013 by parking campaign group the NoToMob.

The BPA’s Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service was launched in October 2012 to listen to representations made by drivers issued parking charge notices by members of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme. London Councils won the three-year contract, building on its experience of running the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS), a tribunal that adjudicates on penalties issued by London boroughs and Transport for London.

The PwC report, carried out for the Audit Committee, stated: “Having taken our own independent legal advice, we are of the view that TEC did not have the legal powers to enter into the contract. It is common ground that local authorities have a general power of competence under section 1 of the Localism Act 2011, which could provide them with the power to enter into such an arrangement and to delegate this to TEC.

“It is our view that such a delegation was not properly secured. The income and expenditure derived from the contract and recorded within the accounts is therefore unlawful.”

The auditor acknowledges that London Councils disagrees with its position, writing: “It is the view of management that the service was and is currently being delivered by TEC on behalf of all the participating authorities with their consent and proper authority.”

The PwC report adds that London Councils is taking steps to delegate the powers to participating boroughs “with their consent and proper authority”.

London Councils said some changes to the process have been set up: “We agree with PwC that a formal delegation from the boroughs will put the matter beyond doubt and securing this delegation is in progress.”

The PwC probe followed allegations from NoToMob that London Councils used powers in the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 to sign the contract with BPA. “These powers only apply to public bodies while the BPA is a limited company,” said a NoToMob spokesman. “London Councils is now trying to use Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 unlawfully to fix this.”

However, London Councils refutes this, stating that the powers it exercises in running POPLA are in Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011.

The BPA’s chief executive, Patrick Troy, told Parking Review: “This is a matter for London Councils to resolve with its auditors. London Councils continues to deliver the POPLA service on behalf of the BPA. The service has provided independent redress for some 40,000 motorists where previously none existed. The contract with London Councils expires on 30 September 2015 and we are currently inviting interested parties to bid for a new contract from 1 October.”

Northlakes

It will be interesting to see if the OS appeals require any different approach but until a few appeals go through no one has any idea

They at least will base their adjudication on english law unlike our IPC friends in Knutsford where there judgements appear to be pure fiction.

Umkomaas

They at least will base their adjudication on english law unlike our IPC friends in Knutsford ....

Hopefully. Time will tell.