Free the 4000

Umkomaas

Patrick Troy saw the light in the face of the evidence.

Only a miracle will allow a blind man to see the light - Trouser Fire will never see the light, but obviously responds to being hit over the head with a sledgehammer.

soton_25

A wall of evidence hitting you in the face at 30+mph must have the force of 7 sledgehammers. At least I think that is the current conversion rate...

beamerguy

soton_25 wrote: »

So - I have the letter the BPA sent to Nicola Mullaney at ISPA. She was kind enough to forward me a copy.

I would post it, but it will be on Prankster/BPA/ISPA websites before long. Simple summary
- appeals judged on the full points raised, beyond commerical justification alone
- new evidence will be allowed

The when and how is not detailed. So we will have to wait for news on that one.

Overall, great job by ISPA and the other stakeholders and consumers who have been lobbying. This shows that with our support ISPA, under the current leadership, have influence with the BPA. And credit where credit is due... BPA and Patrick Troy saw the light in the face of the evidence.

Yes a great job by the ISPA.
With so many appeals it will take a long time and nobody knows how fair the BPA will conduct them ?

Given the win record for the motorist in the past, around 50%, there is still no trust in the BPA and they will have to prove that these 4000 people have been treated fairly.
Therefore Patrick Troy is on thin ice here, it's one thing saying he will do it, it's another actually doing it.

With the sheer time and cost involved, it would be best to scrap every one of them and start again even though Patrick Troy is flawed with all credibility lost, he should do the right thing.
I would NEVER trust Troy, he is not worthy of his position.

The PPC's will not like it but, that's what they get from being part of the UK's BIGGEST scam industry

soton_25

Agree BPA have to be held to their word. But I am celebrating success today. Failure and disappointment are for tomorrow.... Really appreciate the support though Beamer.

pappa_golf

"Following intervention by the Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals (ISPA), the British Parking Association (BPA) has re-considered its previous position regarding 3,500 POPLA appeals that were put on hold until the ParkingEye vs Beavis Supreme Court case judgment.

A new and independent service provider will now consider these appeals in their entirety, not purely on the basis of genuine pre-estimate of loss; additionally ISPA has appointed two new auditors to oversee the work to ensure judicial independence is maintained. The decision making process will commence shortly and it is anticipated that motorists should start receiving the outcome of their cases next month.

Chief Executive Patrick Troy says “We have considered carefully the new evidence drawn to our attention by ISPA, which was established by the BPA to oversee the independence of POPLA; This new evidence has caused us to look at this issue again and to revise the way in which these adjourned cases will be considered.. This must be the best outcome for motorists who can be confident that they will get a complete, fair and independent review of their Appeal following the Supreme Courts’ decision which confirms that the current charging level is lawful and reasonable and motorists parking on private land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions".

trisontana

"...the Supreme Courts’ decision which confirms that the current charging level is lawful and reasonable and motorists parking on private land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions".

Troy just doesn't get it does he? According to him this is a blanket decision which covers every scenario, when that's not the case.

beamerguy

BPA Acts to reconsider POPLA Appeals following independent review

BIG FLAW, how can this be an independent review when as Troy says the BPA set up the ISPA ???? PULL THE OTHER ONE PATRICK, you think we are stupid

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/bpa-acts-to-reconsider-popla-appeals-following-independent-review

Everybody must read this statement carefully .... it's loaded ??

TROY SAYS ..
"following the Supreme Courts’ decision which confirms that the current charging level is lawful and reasonable and motorists parking on private land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions"

Consider this ..... as the 3500 he refers to was prior to Beavis, most appeals will be referring to "unfair charges" or related to !
This says that the probability factor of fair decisions will be small and not the average of 50% success.

TROY SAYS ...
"A new and independent service provider will now consider these appeals in their entirety, not purely on the basis of genuine pre-estimate of loss; additionally ISPA has appointed two new auditors to oversee the work to ensure judicial independence is maintained."

This means that most of those appeals will fail.

TROY SAYS ..,
“We have considered carefully the new evidence drawn to our attention by ISPA, which was established by the BPA to oversee the independence of POPLA; this new evidence has caused us to look at this issue again"

Apart from Troy being given a roasting, as the ISPA was established by the BPA, was Troy fast asleep again not knowing what such evidence was or, is this yet another Troy attempt to dig himself out of the muck ?
Who are these new adjudicators, how can we trust them ??

It all sounds too much like the Red Cow Lane mob, passing from one desk to the other ?

If, the outcome of this treats motorists in contempt, the BPA will be finished along with Troy.

TROY SAYS ...
1: "ISPA has appointed two new auditors"
2: "motorists should start receiving the outcome of their cases next month."

Think about it, 3,500 appeals to look through by two unknown auditors ? are they smart enough to be completely independent, even then, next month is next week ? Is it "open all hours" ?

This is very poor statement by Troy, guess he thinks the general public is stupid.

I have made it very clear that Troy is not to be trusted and watching him on a BBC Watchdog programme, my comment was and still is ... "would you buy a car from this man"

Coupon-mad

This means that most of those appeals will fail.

IMHO most are likely to win as long as the new provider applies old POPLA decision-making, as they damn well should.

The thing is, the cases adjourned were those where the appellant alleged the charge was not based upon any loss. As long as those appellants also had other appeal points too then they are likely to win on those other points because they are 'likely' to have been appellants who researched how to appeal.

People who didn't research how to appeal would be far less likely to have included words along the lines of GPEOL arguments. So people who didn't research appeals are going to be only a small minority of the 3,500.

beamerguy

IMHO most are likely to win as long as the new provider applies old POPLA decision-making, as they damn well should.

And that is a big IF, with new ajudicators who have yet to give their credentials, I suspect this will be another kangeroo court, how can anything Troy and the BPA be trusted,

Umkomaas

Patrick Trouser-Fire has capitulated to pressure from Nicola Mullany of the ISPA and all stayed cases will be (re)heard from scratch. The ISPA will oversee the appointed body (no news on who that will be yet). Moving forward.... slowly!

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/20160127_PT_letter_to_Nicola_Mullany_ISPA_re_adjourned_cases.pdf