Time to force a legal change.

TDA

Marktheshark wrote: »

Only an organised motorist friendly party will make them listen, the threat of nose out of the trough soon wakes them up a bit.
Amazed that even UKIP dont want the motorist vote.
All parties are united in the war against the motorist.

I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of parking-related issues to the general public when deciding where their vote lies. If you are being swayed on your choice of political party based on their stance on parking, rather than issues such as health, education, security etc then you probably need to reassess your priorities!

patman99

Right, the very much re-written (thanks to BlackSpangle) version.
I have added an 8th point to the end about accountability as this is needed.


Dear xxxx,

As part of the Protection of Freedoms Act, (POFA 2012) keeper liability was introduced by Government on the proviso that the parking sector provided the motorist with an impartial appeals process and that the service is funded by the sector. The accreditation body is called the British Parking Agency and is the largest agency of its kind in Europe. The BPA appeals service is called the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) and delivers completely impartial judgements on a case by case basis. Parking enforcement companies cannot access DVLA data without the authority and cooperation of the accreditation body.

However, many of the less reputable parking control companies found that they were making, what they considered to be, too many judgements in favour of the motorist. For this reason since 2014, many of the parking enforcement operators moved to a new accreditation body called the Independent Parking Committee. This body hears appeals through a subsidary called the Independent Appeals Service. Studies have shown that far from being impartial, they have a vested interest in finding in favour of the operators.

One of the main reasons for the impartiality is the fact that one of its directors is also a director of Gladstones Solicitors who specialise in collecting unpaid parking penalties.

In view of the vested interests of the IPC and the persistant flauting of the provisions set out in POFA 2012 by their subsidary the IAS (namely the lack of transparency in their adjudications) I would like you, as my parliamentary representative, to propose any amendments to the POFA that would be neccesary to ensure that the BPA is the only recognised accreditation body for parking enforcement.

This recognised accreditation body must be -

1- Accessible: no one should be denied access because of their location or availability of services beyond the statutory requirements of access (e.g. the postal service).
2- Consistent: Decisions made by the IAS should be broadly consistent with the facts raised by both appellant and operator. Wildly differing outcomes based on similar evidence should not occur. (Even the PPCs would prefer this, although only in cases ruling in their favour, no doubt!)
3- Transparent: The personnel, methods, throughput and results of the IAS should be published and audited to ensure acceptability to the DVLA. This audit to be done annually.
4- Legal: The precedents established by court rulings should bind the IAS's deliberations. This also should reflect the various devolved powers settlements. Thus, the DVLA should not divulge keeper data for parking contraventions where the keeper is resident in Scotland, or the contravention occurred in Scotland. (prob NI as well); until such time as the relevant Parliament enacts such keeper liability. This should also include the relevant observation of the Equality Act to protect disabled persons.
5- Fair: the standard burdens of proof as would be needed in a court shall be present at all times. That includes: those making any claim must establish the evidence to support it; those defending must be able to see and rebut such evidence; all points raised by either side must be considered; the ongoing legal right of the operator to pursue the motorist must be presented with each claim.
6- Timely: an appeal must be heard within no more than 45 days of the appeal being launched. No action is permissible by the operator until the appeal is decided.
7- Reasonable: any decision made by the assessor must be appealable in the case of failure to observe the relevant processes, either to the IAS itself, or in last resort, the courts.
8- Accountable: The DVLA to publish details of all companies suspended from KADOE access along with the reason why and the time limit of the ban (Just like the US-FDA do for companies who are in breach of FDA regulations). These reports to be publicly available and retained for not less than 10 years.

trisontana

It's the British Parking Association. It's not an agency, it's a trade body ( or cosy member's club if you prefer)

Cornucopia

Did we agree that "flauting" should be "flouting"?

bazster

Cornucopia wrote: »

Did we agree that "flauting" should be "flouting"?

I did. Buy a dictionary.

Computersaysno

You'll never get the gov to waste time/money on this. This is best handled via Dft action, or DVLA action...neither of which are going to happen anytime soon...unless people complain.

BlackSpangle

Computersaysno wrote: »

You'll never get the gov to waste time/money on this. This is best handled via Dft action, or DVLA action...neither of which are going to happen anytime soon...unless people complain.

Both the DVLA and DfT are government departments/agencies. So, by definition, it requires government action.

Did you mean that we're unlikely to get parliamentary action? Well, MPs are quite capable of raising a stink with government departments, and ministers tend to take a poor view of government depts who do not respond meaningfully to MPs (of any party). This need not make the floor of the House.

I would redraft the letter, asking my MP to demand that DVLA practice is adjusted in order to adhere to a code of practice in line with the above. It really doesn't require primary legislation, or even amendment to primary legislation.