POPLA Appeal [Premier Park Ltd] (Short Time Left)

bod1467

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

Coupon-mad

OMG if you call a debt collector we will scream...

Sicsiksix

I thought as much!

I did receive a response from ISPA yesterday however:

One of our Independent Assessors has investigated your complaint and
looked at the processes applied to your appeal. She has identified a
concern with the processes followed in your case. That concern will be
reported to the ISPA Board and to the BPA and Ombudsman Services. As
you are aware, ISPA cannot overturn an appeal decision.

Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention.

Coupon-mad

She has identified a concern with the processes followed in your case. That concern will be reported to the ISPA Board and to the BPA and Ombudsman Services.

Annoying that they won't tell you but it confirms to me that (as we all know) the decision in your case, was wrong.

Sicsiksix

So following 3 letters from DRP Ltd, I have now received a letter from Zenith Collections. Seeing as they mention Debt Recovery Plus under their Data Protection statement instead of themselves, I presume they are the same company?

Umkomaas

Most certainly the same company. Check the light grey text block at the bottom right of their letter - tells you all you need to know!

Coupon-mad

Sicsiksix wrote: »

So following 3 letters from DRP Ltd, I have now received a letter from Zenith Collections. Seeing as they mention Debt Recovery Plus under their Data Protection statement instead of themselves, I presume they are the same company?

The NEWBIES thread post #4 with links and info about 'ignore the debt collector' stage, tells you that Zenith and PCS are trading names of DRP.

More importantly, did you see this?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/popla-will-rehear-cases-on-procedural.html

Now try pointing out to POPLA that you already said your case Assessor erred on procedural grounds and ISPA have confirmed that there was a procedural concern they have raised:

One of our Independent Assessors has investigated your complaint and
looked at the processes applied to your appeal. She has identified a
concern with the processes followed in your case.

So, ask POPLA outright AGAIN to rehear the case, to put right the procedural error spotted by yourself and ISPA. The reason for asking now is because POPLA have been forced to change their policy on this, so rattle their cage in response to that change.

complaints@popla.co.uk

EDITED TO ADD: Have a look at frankietwospots' thread! You must first ask ISPA for a copy/excerpt of their report about the 'concerns' because they gave her part of the ISPA report when she asked.

Sicsiksix

Thanks, I have taken a look at the thread and have contacted ISPA to ask for more information, then will contact POPLA following that to see if they will revisit my original complaint.

Sicsiksix

For your information, here is what I have received from ISPA. I am yet to contact POPLA but will put something together today.

12.
Suggested response to complainant – Our auditor has identified a concern with the processes followed in this case. That concern will be reported to the ISPA Board and to BPA and Ombudsman Services. As you are aware, ISPA cannot overturn an appeal decision.
13.
On 27 March 2016, the appellant sent a complaint to ISPA about an appeal rejection he had received. Mr XXXX raised a number of issues in his appeal, but in his complaint to ISPA, raised only two. I have not considered the first, which was the refusal by OS to reconsider the appeal following his complaint about the decision as I understand this is being considered elsewhere.
14.
Mr XXXX said the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with PoFA 2012. No Notice to Keeper was ever issued in this case.
15.
The Parking Charge Notice was placed on the vehicle on 17 October 2015. Mr XXXX responded to the notice with a letter of appeal. This was undated but contains an internal date stamp from the operator of 18 November 2015. In that letter, Mr XXXX did not identify the driver, but referred to himself as “registered keeper of the vehicle”.
16.
On 20th November 2015 the operator wrote to Mr XXXX, informing him that his appeal had been denied and informing him he had three options – a) pay the parking charge notice
a.
b) make an appeal to POPLA
b.
c) take no action in which case the operator would seek to recover the debt which may result in legal proceedings “against you or the Registered Keeper”.
17.
I am satisfied that at this point the operator was pursuing Mr XXXX. But as the driver of the vehicle had not been identified, it had not complied with any of the provisions of PoFA 2012.
18.
In her decision, the assessor stated that “the operator has the right to issue a notice in order to pursue the keeper if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days”. She stated “in this case the operator had not sought keeper liability”. She said “the operator has not issued a Notice to Keeper as the keeper of the vehicle has responded to the Notice to Driver”.
19.
I am not satisfied the assessor has clearly explained why she has not allowed the appeal on this point. The only person who was been properly issued with a notice is the driver. The driver has not been identified.
20.
Mr XXXX is being pursued for payment of the parking fine, but has not been identified as the driver. Mr XXXX has identified himself as the keeper, but as the adjudicator has explained, he has not been pursued as the keeper.
21.
The reasoning in the decision is not clear. From the material before me I am not satisfied the assessor has correctly applied the provisions of PoFA 2012 and this has compromised the fairness of the decision.

Coupon-mad

Bang!!

That shows ISPA know the score.

Shockingly, even now, POPLA are continuing to make this error - if ISPA can grasp the law why can't POPLA? Can you remind us of your POPLA code if you don't mind? And do ISPA give the name of their own Assessor and the date of her opinion? Those details would be handy as they can assist other people who can cite that ISPA finding in POPLA appeals up front.

In your case, submit that to Mr Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator (by name) and inform him that it is clear from ISPA's report that POPLA made a procedural and factual error by failing to apply the law properly, failing to establish that the individual being pursued was actually the driver (the only person possibly liable). An absence of any NTK is ALWAYS fatal to liability unless the driver has put their hands up in an appeal, or can be otherwise evidenced by the party claiming the money.

The burden rests with the operator to follow the POFA or identify a driver. Simple - there are no cracks in between.

It seems POPLA Assessors need retraining urgently in this regard and cannot continue to presume (contrary to the POFA and against the clear statement by Henry Greenslade in 2015 where he said NO such presumption exists nor should ever be made) that a Notice to Driver early appeal means it *must* be assumed to have come from the driver.

Happens far too often and causes consumers loss, which is not what POPLA is set up to do. Well done for fighting this wrong decision all the way and hopefully helping to get POPLA Assessors retrained out of this unlawful presumption.