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

Sicsiksix

Finally had a response back from POPLA.

Good Morning

Thank you for contacting POPLA.

Thank you for your email. The lead adjudicator has asked me to respond on his behalf.
As the parking operator did not transfer liability to the keeper of the vehicle, the driver is responsible for the parking charge. We reached a decision that the parking charge was valid and accordingly refused the appeal.
The decision explanation was not sufficiently clear as confirmed by the ISPA review, for which I apologise. We have taken this feedback on board. However, we have a one-stage process and the decision will not change.

Kind Regards

Colin Pugh
POPLA Team

So now I'm still stuck, receiving a Debt recovery letter a week until they finally get to the court stages I guess. Going back to POPLA is just a complete waste of time, they clearly have no interest in correcting the decision.

My POPLA reference is 6663245520.

bod1467

Dear POPLA,
Thanks for confirming in writing that you still don't understand the law (POFA 2012) - even when it has been explained to you by both myself and the ISPA - and that your decision was fundamentally flawed in law, thus gives no support to [PPC name]'s claim. I will use this correspondence trail in my evidence pack should [PPC name] take this matter to small claims court.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not liable for the claimed amount as [PPC name] did not lawfully transfer liability from driver to keeper.

Herzlos

I think you need to highlight the fact that the driver has never been identified and you can only be pursued as keeper, which they admit they are not doing.

Umkomaas

You must refer this back to ISPA as POPLA don't, still, understand the law (as bod says).

If I was an ISPA board member, I'd be hopping about this.

Time for action!

Sicsiksix

Thanks for contacting POPLA.

As you have responded to the Notice to Driver, this assumes driver liability of the parking charge.

I would recommend speaking to the Citizens Advice Bureau, who will be able to provide advice on what to do going forward.

They just repeatedly make it up as they go along.

The_Deep

The C.A.B. may be fine for helping people with debt, and benefit claimants, but do not ask them to help with parking invoices, most of their advisors haven't a clue.

Umkomaas

As you have responded to the Notice to Driver, this assumes driver liability of the parking charge.

Ask them where in law is this stated. It certainly isn't in PoFA 2012 and, for that matter, even the BPA Code of Practice does not attempt this conflation. Where in the POPLA advice to appellants is this covered?

It is more than a feasible scenario that the driver could hand the windscreen ticket to the keeper who then says, 'Leave it to me, I will deal with it'. Nothing in law makes the keeper then liable by appealing the ticket.

Report this again to ISPA.

Coupon-mad

Sicsiksix wrote: »

Finally had a response back from POPLA.



So now I'm still stuck, receiving a Debt recovery letter a week until they finally get to the court stages I guess. Going back to POPLA is just a complete waste of time, they clearly have no interest in correcting the decision.

My POPLA reference is 6663245520.

I would reply to POPLA asking for a personal response from the Lead Adjudicator or the Service Manager (or equivalent) as the old POPLA service used to escalate complaints and the public received proper responses from management from old POPLA in 2015 and before under the London Councils service, who also NEVER got 'keeper liability' wrong in law. The Managers in the old POPLA service replied personally to formal complaints and re-heard cases when an error was made - make it clear this is to be considered a 'FORMAL COMPLAINT'. Use those words.

Point out that the ISPA finding was crystal clear that POPLA had failed to show that the APPELLANT was liable, which is fundamental to a decision telling that appellant to pay. The ISPA finding was not merely that POPLA's 'explanation was not sufficiently clear' - this is not what ISPA said - and so you request that this is referred to Mr Gallagher to revisit.

And ask, why are POPLA ignoring the clear statement by Henry Greenslade, the previous Lead Adjudicator (and barrister, and PATAS Adjudicator - basically a parking law expert) who stated that it is the keeper’s right not to name the driver, and of course still not be lawfully held liable, under Schedule 4. Mr Greenslade said in the Annual Report 2015:

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”

Say that, clearly, this current POPLA service is suffering from a significant misunderstanding about Schedule 4 themselves and are letting consumers down and causing them loss. This is unacceptable in the extreme, POPLA cannot re-write the applicable law to find a new way to hold keepers liable 'outwith the POFA' - there is no such route for liability for a keeper appellant. A keeper CANNOT be held to be liable to pay when the driver has never been identified, in a case where the POFA was not used/complied with in the documentation served.

Sicsiksix

As much as I'd love to keep chasing them over and over and over again as I have already, I really just don't see the point in wasting my time on it. They clearly have no intention on changing the decision regardless of whether they are in the wrong or not.

All of the above has already been said to them at least twice.

Coupon-mad

OK, just don't pay!