Company car - advice is to appeal early, but how early?

Edna_Basher

frankietwospots wrote: »

Obviously I'd love to know exactly what those concerns identified were, but I'm guessing this is all I'll get...

Why not e-mail ISPA to ask for full details of all of the concerns identified in their audit of your POPLA case?

If any of ISPA's concerns related to procedural errors, you'll have a strong argument to put to POPLA to get the case reassessed - bearing in mind POPLA's recent change to its complaints policy.

Even if there were no identified procedural errors, I would hope that the ISPA audit identified the assessor's glaring factual error of failing to spot that the operator produced no evidence of landowner authority. If so, this would be good ammunition to put pressure on POPLA to reassess the case.

frankietwospots

Thanks - I've just emailed them to request full details.

frankietwospots

Here's an extract from the report that I was sent by IPSA (note I was only sent this extract, not the full report). I've highlighted some key points in bold, namely that POPLA were wrong to instruct me to pay in full and that, crucially, no landowner contract was provided by the operator.

Our auditor has identified concerns with the processes followed in this case. Those concerns will be reported to the ISPA Board and to BPA and Ombudsman Services. As you are aware, ISPA cannot overturn an appeal decision.

On 30 March 2016, Ms X sent a complaint to ISPA about an appeal decision she had received.

OS did not send the appeal letter to the operator until after the operator and she complained. On 29 December 2015, OS received an email from Ms X which included a pdf containing her appeal against the parking charge. This was included on the case file that could be accessed by the OS but was not uploaded onto the portal and was not sent to the operator. As a result the operator responded to the appeal without knowing what the grounds were.
Errors were made with the way Ms X was notified of the decision. Ms X complains that on 9 March 2016, the POPLA portal said the outcome was unsuccessful, but she says the decision reasoning stated she had won because there was no landowner authority. On 15 March 2016, the operator complained that because it had not seen the grounds of appeal it had had no opportunity to respond to those points. On 16 March 2016, Ms X was sent an email by OS which apologized for the error and said her case had been completed without the full information being considered and it would be reconsidered. On 22 March 2016 a new decision was issued. This did not allow the appeal.
No explanation was given to Ms X about why the decision had changed. I cannot say why Ms X did not receive an explanation along the lines of the summary above.

These errors and the rectifying of them will have caused Ms X and the operator frustration and inconvenience, but I am satisfied in themselves they did not compromise the fairness of the decision.
It is wrong for POPLA to suggest she needs to pay the parking fine in full as only a judge in small claims can do that. I have seen a copy of the email sent to Ms X when she complained about the appeal process. In a response from Emily Chriscoli she was told “Your appeal has been refused. This means you will need to pay the Parking Charge Notice in full.” This is not usual wording from Ombudsman Services. I am satisfied this was an error, which caused Ms X frustration. I do not consider this affected the fairness of the decision making process.

The final decision identified the wrong points of appeal. The assessor said the appeal was based upon a valid ticket having been purchased and inadequate signage. I am satisfied there was no reference to the lack of landowner contract despite this having been raised in Ms X’s initial letter of appeal to POPLA. After receiving the details of Ms X’s appeal, which included this issue, the operator failed to provide this evidence. I have not seen the original decision, but understand it also contained reference to the absence of this evidence. I am satisfied landowner authority was raised as an issue in this case and the assessor’s failure to consider this could have affected the outcome of the decision.

@Edna Basher - I wasn't aware that POPLA have changed their complaints policy so I will take a look. Given the last sentence in the extract above, I think I've got every right to go back to POPLA and complain!

Coupon-mad

Yes indeedy, email complaints@popla.co.uk and ask for the case to be re-heard in view of their change of policy and ISPA's report.

That is an interesting report from ISPA, the first one we've seen on here. Didn't know they would let you see it!

frankietwospots

Well I figured if you don't ask, you don't get! Emailing POPLA complaints now...

frankietwospots

So 11 working days since I emailed my complaint to POPLA and no response. So much for their revamped complaint procedure with an aim to reply within 10 working days. Rubbish. Needless to say, I've chased it up.

frankietwospots

Disgraceful response from POPLA below. This is after emailing the complaints email address twice with no response (clearly no-one is checking it, or it doesn't work) and then resorting to the usual info@popla.org.uk mailbox.

It begs the question, why bother having a complaints procedure at all? They say on their website that 'If it is clear that a procedural error has been made during the assessment of your appeal, we might review the case and make changes where we deem necessary.' Well, guess what, it IS clear that a procedural error has been made in my case which is backed up by ISPA's investigation! I can't possibly let this lie...

Here's their email back to me:

Dear XX

As previously advised, while we note you are unhappy with our decision, we have now reached the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal.

As such, any further correspondence regarding your appeal will be noted on our system but we will not respond.

Yours sincerely,

POPLA Team

bod1467

Dear POPLA,
Thank you for NOT actually reading my correspondence. The original hearing of my appeal was subject to a procedural error. This is provable by the investigation report from the ISPA that I have already provided to you. Per POPLA's own policy, you are required to reassess my appeal. Please confirm by return that this will happen.

=====
Check what POPLA's policy actually says ... if it says might then that gives them a get-out clause to ignore you.

Don't worry though - this won't go anywhere near a court case - the only way the PPC can try to make you pay.

frankietwospots

It does say 'might' and I'm guessing they are invoking that.

If it is clear that a procedural error has been made during the assessment of your appeal, we might review the case and make changes where we deem necessary.