Free the 4000

pappa_golf

salmosalaris wrote: »

The private parking industry sinks to a new low


8 December 2015

Dear ......
Parking Eye vs Beavis Supreme Court case
You will no doubt be aware of the above case which was delivered on 4 November.
You may know that a number of cases considered by POPLA were adjourned as a result of Mr Beavis appealing from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
During this period the service provider for POPLA changed from London Councils to The Ombudsman Service. This has complicated how these cases might now be resolved and has led to a delay in finding an efficient way to have the cases heard.
The BPA has agreed that the safest and fairest way to proceed is to appoint an independent service provider to act as it if were POPLA and to determine these cases only in relation to the issue for which they were adjourned, mainly around the matter of proportionality of the charge. The service provider – once appointed – will consider each case on its merits, apply the law as it now applies following the Supreme Court case. Appellants and operators should then receive a decision in the normal way.
I wanted to let you know as you had made contact regarding the issue, so that you are aware both of the delay in processing these cases and of the expedient way in which we are now intending to deal with this matter.
We are appointing a service provider quickly and hope to have them in place early in the New Year.
We would like to thank you for your patience. The coincidence of the court case and the change in the POPLA service provider created a unique set of circumstances which are unlikely ever to be repeated. I look forward to a satisfactory conclusion to this particular chapter for all concerned so we can move on quickly.
Yours Sincerely

Patrick Troy
Chief Executive

IAS? :j


as the cases were held , during the time that London councils were adjudicating , they should PAY London councils to perform them


the rules state that cases will be adjudicated by POPLA , not "joe blogs" , and as such they cannot be held as legally binding without changes accepted by the goverment

Castle

pappa_golf wrote: »

the rules state that cases will be adjudicated by POPLA , not "joe blogs" , and as such they cannot be held as legally binding without changes accepted by the goverment

Quite right; if it says POPLA on the PCN then it has to be either the London Council or the new POPLA.
BPA cannot rewrite the appeal criteria and/or rules for those who have already submitted their appeals.

salmosalaris

And every appellant should be receiving a written assessment describing why all their individual appeal points failed, as they would have if their appeals had not been adjourned .

They should all be writing to Mr Troy and demanding it .

Edna_Basher

Mr Troy's letter dated 8th December was received by e-mail this afternoon (i.e. some 6 days later). Presumably the Interpretation Act doesn't apply to e-mail communication?

We'll certainly be writing to Mr. Troy requiring answers to a number of questions including:

With whom has the BPA agreed that the safest and fairest way to proceed is to appoint an independent service provider to act as it if were POPLA? It certainly wasn't agreed with us.

Even if this alternative service provider were truly independent, how would the BPA be able to guarantee their competence, at least to the level demonstrated by POPLA?

Given that in many cases, the reason given by London Councils POPLA for adjournment (i.e. Beavis) was totally wrong, why should this alternative service provider consider these cases only in relation to the issue for which they were adjourned?

Umkomaas

Appalling presumptuousness yet again from Trouser Fire! Why does he think he has the right to decide anything?

Grandad123

Why am I not surprised


I don't think the BPA have ever decided anything as they are the kings of the fob-off.


Can I ask to whom this email was addressed. He should have sent it to all of us. I am inclined to send him a short note, but is this email in the public domain.

Edna_Basher

We have four old London Councils POPLA cases in limbo and our company received a copy of this letter from the BPA by e-mail this afternoon. However, none of our four cases is in anyway dependent on the outcome of Beavis; three were routine cases where the operators had failed to comply with POFA whilst the fourth had actually already been allowed by POPLA! We had already made the BPA aware of this when London Council issued their flurry of notification of adjournment letters at the beginning of October. We'll be responding to Mr. Troy to remind him of this.

I expect that the BPA will be sending the letter to everyone of the 4,000, either by post or by e-mail (where they have an e-mail address).

Grandad123 - maybe yours will arrive in the post in the next day or so. The BPA did not mark their letter as "Private & Confidential" and so you can reasonably treat it as being in the public domain.

yotmon

4000 unpaid invoices x a minimum of £100 = £400,000, which should just about cover all the staff bonuses, pressies and xmas party expenses. C'mon guys, give them a break - it's Christmas for God's sake :beer:

Hang on, doesn't the BPA owe a shed full of money to the 'original' Popla. Obviously can't go back there 'cap in hand' asking for a favour, can they ??

pappa_golf

thought the old POPLa had been paid , but not done the appeals yet?


in fact the parking prankster posted about this on 14th October , http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/british-parking-association-refuse-to.html


As a possible lifesaver for the BPA, to offset the amount owed, there are about 4,000 POPLA cases which London councils contracted to adjudicate on but did not. This was because the cases arose during POPLA's remit but were stayed until the Beavis result.



London Councils told the BPA that all aspects of these stayed cases had been adjudicated on and that the assessors had found against motorists for all issues apart from issues around GPEOL currently being decided in the Supreme Court in the Beavis case. This turned out to be false and a clumsy attempt by London Councils to pull the wool over the BPA eyes.

yotmon

But the article mentions PBA owing Popla £200,000. If PBA have already paid the £27.00 fee for 4,000 appeals, then that equals £108,000. So there is a large discrepancy in the sums involved. Can't see the London councils agreeing to help out until the deficit is cleared.