Additional Guidance NTK Received

Redx

well done

looks like HIGHVIEW and SMART parking have both recently decided to ignore the mandatory "giving out a popla code" with rejections which is strange since they were told about this more than once by the BPA over the last 16 months

it seems to be a common practice with some of these companies (like ANPR and JAS) they they do anything to avoid giving out popla codes with rejections, preferring to send it straight to debt recovery

SilverJuzzy

Yeah I don't think BPA were too impressed to be honest

Dr._Shoe

I'm wondering if another paragraph ought to be added to the template letter reminding the CPC of their obligations to either cancel the charge or to issue a POPLA code? Something like:

I would at this point like to remind you of your mandatory obligations under POFA 2012 in that you are required to either issue a POPLA code, so that I can take this matter to an independant appeal, or to cancel the charge. I am also aware of the fact that you have no legal right to the name or any other detail relating to the driver at the time of the alleged offence and any such request will be ignored.

I'm thinking that this might be enough to get the charge cancelled on its own in that it shows that you know the law!

bod1467

POFA 2012 does not compel an independent appeal. I believe the guidance notes do (recommend this), as does the BPA code of practice, but not the legislation itself.

But I agree it would be worth including a reminder about an independent appeals code. (Earlier incarnations of the appeal template used to do this).

Redx

always worth noting that popla isnt the only appeals system (unfortunately) , so that is why the IAS would be used where its NOT popla

Ralph-y

well done :j

now let the Government know all about this shoddy practice

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418725/Parking_Discussion_Paper_FINAL.pdf

Ralph:cool: