Lost at POPLA against Parking Eye - what next?

Redx

what I cannot understand in this day and age is why there is no further appeal process !!

the courts have several appeal processes, as Beavis found out and used, yet POPLA seem to think their decision is final even if its obviously wrong !

there should be an escalation procedure , especially in the first year of operation where people are still training up and mistakes are bound to be made

I appreciate the BPA employed them but its unbelievable that they dont have a referral process for obvious failures (its a basic legal premise) , their website is still a joke and their online appeal process is still flawed

the sooner the DCLG publishes their decision based on last years survey the sooner we may get some sense into this unregulated industry, has to be better than it is right now

I saw one post on here this week that stated they were thinking of suing POPLA, might be an idea to wake them up this way , like the legal action taken by the junior doctors this week may wake up the gov over those contract issues

POPLA needs to change or its becoming a laughing stock nearly as bad as the IAS, the BPA is losing members hand over fist and seems to mainly consist of debt collectors now (or charlatans like UKPC)

there are some recent POPLA decisions that are good and well thought out, but the vast majority seem flawed , only the ones where no evidence pack was put to them seem to go through "on the nod", because they dont have to do any real work

poorly trained ? yep, definitely seems like it, and nobody overseeing it when you think that any complaints are dealt with by the same assessor and not by a lead adjudicator like happened at the old POPLA

Coupon-mad

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Also, for transparency and public confidence, the Ombudsman Service Ltd should publish a POPLA organisation chart to show exactly who is in charge of managing the overall appeals / complaints process, including details of the person who is ultimately responsible for the current sorry mess.

Whilst POPLA may have put its team of named assessors directly in the firing line for their mistakes, it's absurd that POPLA has not yet revealed the identity of its Lead Adjudicator (at least, not to my knowledge).

Although it's easy to have a pop at individual assessors, it's very apparent that they've been chucked in at the deep end and have not been given appropriate training and instruction. As Umkomaas points out, there is little evidence of any serious legal training or expertise.

I agree. What is most shameful is that they have not been trained on the POFA and some decisions have been plain wrong on VERY EASY to train, very easy to understand, POFA deadlines. The one that was won by the appellant the other day but the POPLA Assessor said it did not matter that the NTK after a windscreen PCN was served after 67 days, was embarrassing.

Jeez there are only a few sections to Schedule 4 and ONLY two possible deadlines for a NTK. How badly trained can they get that they have not been trained on those deadlines?

They seem not to understand that a keeper can't be liable without the POFA - why then, do they think the legislation exists?

Don't get me started on the Beavis case being blindly applied by POPLA like a plaster to weak cases.

We had one yesterday - F1rst Parking - where the PPC had set out NO rationale for their charge nor even adduced the Beavis case. So POPLA did it for them, assuming that the rationale must be the same as in Beavis and that there would be commercial justification (even though never argued by the PPC, not even with a single line about what the charge was for/any legitimate interest). It was an 8 page evidence pack thrown together by a 12 year old, without even a copy of the PCN or NTK! :mad:

henrik777

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I agree. What is most shameful is that they have not been trained on the POFA and some decisions have been plain wrong on VERY EASY to train, very easy to understand, POFA deadlines. The one that was won by the appellant the other day but the POPLA Assessor said it did not matter that the NTK after a windscreen PCN was served after 67 days, was embarrassing.

Jeez there are only a few sections to Schedule 4 and ONLY two possible deadlines for a NTK. How badly trained can they get that they have not been trained on those deadlines?

They seem not to understand that a keeper can't be liable without the POFA - why then, do they think the legislation exists?

Don't get me started on the Beavis case being blindly applied by POPLA like a plaster to weak cases.

We had one yesterday - F1rst Parking - where the PPC had set out NO rationale for their charge nor even adduced the Beavis case. So POPLA did it for them, assuming that the rationale must be the same as in Beavis and that there would be commercial justification (even though never argued by the PPC, not even with a single line about what the charge was for/any legitimate interest). It was an 8 page evidence pack thrown together by a 12 year old, without even a copy of the PCN or NTK! :mad:

Maybe they were doing 2 at once because i won one because they said there was no notice to keeper in the evidence pack. There was. My spider senses tell me that even though the decisions are final, this one won't be.

Edna_Basher

It seems that ISPA have rattled a few cages at POPLA.

POPLA have now advised that their Lead Adjudicator is called John Gallagher, explaining that he is part of the ombudsman team at Ombudsman Services and has lead responsibility for POPLA decision-making.

POPLA have also stated that they will look at putting details of the team structure on their website in the "near future".

Ralph-y

so .... who ever is / has ....

(to use Edna Basher terminology) ...

been rattling ISPA's cage ....

has been doing a good job

Ralph:cool:

Edna_Basher

You may think that Ralph-y, I couldn't possibly comment

C4WRX

Great stuff. Would anyone happen to know John Gallagher's direct email address?

C4WRX

I have drafted the following email that I will send to POPLA. I will send it to their complaints email address again but have marked it for the attention of John Gallagher. Good idea?

Later I will also draft a letter to send to BPA, ISPA, and DVLA, as per Umkomaas's advice.

Please review the letter below and let me know if there are any amendments I should make:

FORMAL COMPLAINT - F.A.O. JOHN GALLAGHER - POPLA CODE 6060186304 - ERRONEOUS DECISION INCONSISTENT WITH RECENT POPLA DECISIONS‏



Dear Mr Gallagher,

I have a formal complaint and respectfully require the matter reviewed by yourself. My complaint is that the Assessor has made a finding of fact about there being no signs saying how the ANPR data will be used - but then misapplied it/dismissed it as unimportant. As the lack of such signs is a BPA CoP and ICO breach and has been the single winning point in a number of recent POPLA decisions, to find the same issue wrongly dismissed by this Assessor is inconsistent and unfair to myself as a consumer appellant.

I had requested POPLA to invoke their complaints procedure, but had my request referred back to the same Assessor, which is clearly an unfair process. The assessor appears to have missed the very valid point that not being informed that ANPR will time a car from the point of entry (contrary to expectations) is very clearly impactful upon any alleged overstay/non payment calculation. The usual expectation by an ordinary motorist in possession of the facts would be - unless clearly informed otherwise - that the contract starts only when you park and pay (case law authority: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking).

At the very least, POPLA must strive for consistency in decisions and I ask that the conclusion quoted below is urgently reviewed. Time is of the essence because ParkingEye sue consumers and this error has caused me serious distress.

To be clear, the Assessor has erred after making a finding of fact. Specifically:

The assessor quoted: “ANPR usage: I note the appellant says “Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it is stated: 'You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.' While I recognise that the signage does not state this, I do not consider that this prevented the appellant from adhering to the terms and conditions of the car park.”

The fact the driver is not informed that the ANPR data is used as the start and end point of a timed "stay" is highly relevant and impacts the ability to adhere to the terms & conditions, payment or not.


Yours Sincerely

Coupon-mad

I have drafted the following email that I will send to POPLA. I will send it to their complaints email address again but have marked it for the attention of John Gallagher. Good idea?

Yes, I think so. I would also tell him you are about to complain formally to ISPA as well because POPLA must be seen to be fair and consistent otherwise how are consumers supposed to make informed decisions about their grounds for appeal.

You could cite this POPLA appeal although I don't know the POPLA code it was from the first week in Feb and was about ParkingEye.



Decision Successful
Assessor Name: Lauren Bailey
Assessor summary of operator case (early Feb 2016)


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signage at the site is inadequate. He states that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. Further, the appellant states that the parking charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is a breach of UTCCR 1999 and CPUTR 2008. The appellant has questioned the accuracy of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology and what that data is used for.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
Within his grounds for appeal, the appellant has raised ANPR usage.

The appellant has quoted section 21.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice that states motorists must be ‘informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for’.

As such, I must consider whether the signage at the location is sufficient to inform motorists that ANPR technology is being used and what it is used for.

Further, within Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it is stated: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

Additionally, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that any “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

Within its response, the operator has provided evidence of the signage at the location. Having considered this, while I note that it advises that the “car park monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras for”, as required under Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice.

As it does not advise motorists that the parking time begins immediately upon entry, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to meet the minimum standards set out within Sections 21.1 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

Therefore, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and so while I note the appellants other grounds for appeal, these do not require further consideration.

C4WRX

I have now sent the complaint email to POPLA with the amendments above carried out, and also a copy to Nicola Mullany at ISPA.

I have composed the email below to send to DVLA and BPA. Could I get your opinions on it before I send it please?

FORMAL COMPLAINT - Parking Eye in breach of KADOE contract

Dear Customer Complaint Resolution Team,

This email is a formal complaint against Parking Eye Ltd, as they are in breach of the KADOE contract to get DVLA data.

Namely, the assessor of my POPLA appeal has pointed out that Parking Eye have breached paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, which states:
'You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.'

The matter has been escalated to the CCR team because I have no confidence in the data release team to take such a complaint seriously, as it's in the public domain that they have dismissed these issues far too many times recently without so much as even supplying a copy of the DVLA complaints procedure leaflet. If my complaint is not resolved properly my intention will be to involve my MP and refer the issue to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Yours Faithfully