Parking Eye Reply - They say we can't win - Please Help

Redx

do as instructed above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

14wrence

OK - the BPA replied rather quickly.

Their reply basically says that the most likely resolution will be PE provide a POPLA code.

They have said there is no breach of code by PE and no sanction points will be awarded and that it is perfectly reasonable for them to request extra evidence as part of an appeal investigation, and that quote:

"all you had to do was respond to say you don't have the extra evidence. This would have expedited the process rather than slow it down."

Anyway - looks like it is now moving.

bod1467

Have the BPA revised their CoP to remove the part which stated that PPCs should not be asking the appellant to provide further information?

14wrence

bod1467 wrote: »

Have the BPA revised their CoP to remove the part which stated that PPCs should not be asking the appellant to provide further information?

I would be more than happy to reply and ask them this. I am just sifting through their CoP to see if I can find this bit now.

Should I also then say, on this basis - I believe they need to speak with Parking Eye. and that over 35 days have passed since the appeal and still no POPLA code - so I believe it needs to be overturned.

Or would it be a waste of time? Is their an ombudsman who monitor the BPA?

Fruitcake

14wrence wrote: »

I would be more than happy to reply and ask them this. I am just sifting through their CoP to see if I can find this bit now.

Should I also then say, on this basis - I believe they need to speak with Parking Eye. and that over 35 days have passed since the appeal and still no POPLA code - so I believe it needs to be overturned.

Or would it be a waste of time? Is their an ombudsman who monitor the BPA?

It might be better to let things time out rather than prod PoPLA to remind parking lie again.

14wrence

bod1467 wrote: »

Have the BPA revised their CoP to remove the part which stated that PPCs should not be asking the appellant to provide further information?

I am afraid I can only find 22.8 here which seems to be more in PE's favour.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2014_update_V5.pdf

14wrence

I could however say to BPA about point 22.8 in their CoP that since PE putting it on hold for 14 days, I have still not heard from them in over 35 days (even after the 14 day 'on hold' period expired).

ColliesCarer

14wrence wrote: »

They have said there is no breach of code by PE and no sanction points will be awarded and that it is perfectly reasonable for them to request extra evidence as part of an appeal investigation, and that quote:

"all you had to do was respond to say you don't have the extra evidence. This would have expedited the process rather than slow it down."

Anyway - looks like it is now moving.

I would respond and point out to them;

The only party slowing down the process was PE - who did not specify why they could not process the appeal, from you as keeper of the vehicle, without extra evidence nor in fact what extra evidence they were seeking from the keeper in order to proceed.

Also PE did not put the appeal on hold pending receipt of whatever extra information they sought; they put it on hold for a set period of time - i.e. 14 days - at the end of which time it was perfectly reasonable for you to consider the appeal would be taken off hold and processed within a further 35 days ( as per BPA CoP 22.8 )

This has not happened and you are still awaiting the outcome of your appeal.

14wrence

Also - something I should have done from the outset - I have made a complaint to the shop whose car park it was at.

Coupon-mad

Quote this which came from the BPA and DVLA:

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=3154.0




Dear Mr XXXX,

Thank you for your patience in this matter.

The British Parking Association have now provided a response to myself.

The BPA have confirmed that this practice should not be occurring (as we already knew) and have taken steps to address this behaviour throughout the industry as this may not be an isolated incident.

The following message has now been issued by the BPA to all of their members...

“the following practices may be considered as Code breaches and must not be continued:
• Asking the motorist to enter into additional correspondence to obtain a POPLA code
• Failing to include a correct and/or valid POPLA Code within the Rejection correspondence
• Issuing a POPLA Code with a date identifier which is significantly different from the date of rejection
• Appearing to indicate that the issue of a POPLA Code is conditional on driver details being supplied “

I am hoping that this type of incident will not be occurring any more.

I wish to thank you of bringing this matter to the DVLA’s attention and ultimately, the BPA’s.

If you do encounter any further issues such as this, please do not hesitate to contact myself.

Kind regards


However you won't get anywhere with the complaint!! You've won at POPLA already though, did I read that right back in this loooong thread?

the Ntk point is quite well countered by parking eye

That was an old quote of yours but I strongly disagree and can see lots of holes in PE NTKs!