Letter from Wright Hassall acting as POPLA

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Also, we are fortunate for having recent cases thrown out by the Cardiff court only last week. See the Parking Prankster's blog. A PPC was trying to charge motorists where they had no landowner authority whatsoever, despite being vetted by the BPA.

So, you MUST refer to this in your 2nd appeal and demand that the PPC provides a copy of the contract identifying the area in question and their authority to act as a 2nd stage appeal point, and refuse to accept any so called witness statements as an alternative.

Depends...if Armtrac supplied no landowner contract in 2015 why give them a chance to supply a better, shiny version now? I would not suggest people demand 'further and better' arguments from their opponent!

It does depend in each case what the evidence pack (if any) stated in 2015.

This is almost impossible for us to cover in seven days for everyone so I wrote the above post #8 to show people things I reckon they should use (e.g. Greenslade's own words from the service that WH are ostensibly fulfilling - plus the POFA, the BPA CoP and the Beavis case itself).

henrik777

Did you ever get an evidence pack ? That's #1 on my list.

Guys_Dad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Depends...if Armtrac supplied no landowner contract in 2015 why give them a chance to supply a better, shiny version now? I would not suggest people demand 'further and better' arguments from their opponent!

It does depend in each case what the evidence pack (if any) stated in 2015.

This is almost impossible for us to cover in seven days for everyone so I wrote the above post #8 to show people things I reckon they should use (Greenslade's own words from the service WH are ostensibly fulfilling - plus the POFA, the BPA CoP and the Beavis case itself).

Again, you are correct, but.... if WH treat the initial appeal as being a GPEOL appeal and if nothing is added, it fails by default, on balance the authority point needs to be made on the 2nd appeal.

I suspect that they will either skim read or ignore the original correspondence and, of course, the PPC may not have supplied any evidence and certainly some motorists have had no sight of what they did send in.

Gadfium

Is it relevant that WH are saying that they will send any further evidence to the PPC, allow them to make comments and then make the decision?

Guys_Dad

Gadfium wrote: »

Is it relevant that WH are saying that they will send any further evidence to the PPC, allow them to make comments and then make the decision?

Yes. Some motorists have not yet seen any PPC evidence. Under old & new POPLA, the motorist then gets to see the PPC evidence and refute it. The IAS does not do this, so if WH are not challenged, then they will be working on the IAS model in many cases, not POPLA.

BPA should be contacted if this should happen to you.

Gadfium

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Yes. Some motorists have not yet seen any PPC evidence. Under old & new POPLA, the motorist then gets to see the PPC evidence and refute it. The IAS does not do this, so if WH are not challenged, then they will be working on the IAS model in many cases, not POPLA.

BPA should be contacted if this should happen to you.

They are even saying in the letters (I got mine today) that they supplied email address if for submitting evidence only and that they will not respond to any correspondence or speak over the phone.

beamerguy

WRIGHT HASSALL
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016_04_01_archive.html

Gadfium

The wording of the letter and the manner in which it was delivered (giving motorists only 3 days to respond to cases that have been hanging around for over a year) leads me to believe that WH are anything but independent and a fair assessor. The old Lead Adjudicator stated:
"At POPLA, Assessors consider the evidence produced by each party, all of which evidence the other party has the opportunity to see and comment upon”
and again from the 2015 Annual Report:
“…it is certainly a basic principle of a fair appeals service that each party is given the opportunity to see the other party’s case and to comment upon it. This is the position at POPLA. Appellants should obviously receive the operator’s evidence in its entirety.''

Will they provide the response back from the PPC after they have forwarded new evidence to them?

In addition, the lead Adjudicator also stated (again from page 3 of the Final Report) that “I might add that each case is carefully considered, not by an anonymous decision maker but rather by a named Assessor. I really do not see how anything less could be considered fair and open. Assessors at POPLA have no contact with parties or with the BPA, who are in fact located in a different part of the country. Quite simply, we are as completely removed and independent of the BPA …””
Have Wright Hassall named their assessors? Can they evidence that they are independant from the BPA and the PPCs when they operate on behalf of PPCs?

pappa_golf

Gadfium wrote: »

The wording of the letter and the manner in which it was delivered (giving motorists only 3 days to respond to cases that have been hanging around for over a year) leads me to believe that WH are anything but independent and a fair assessor. The old Lead Adjudicator stated:
"At POPLA, Assessors consider the evidence produced by each party, all of which evidence the other party has the opportunity to see and comment upon”
and again from the 2015 Annual Report:
“…it is certainly a basic principle of a fair appeals service that each party is given the opportunity to see the other party’s case and to comment upon it. This is the position at POPLA. Appellants should obviously receive the operator’s evidence in its entirety.''

Will they provide the response back from the PPC after they have forwarded new evidence to them?

In addition, the lead Adjudicator also stated (again from page 3 of the Final Report) that “I might add that each case is carefully considered, not by an anonymous decision maker but rather by a named Assessor. I really do not see how anything less could be considered fair and open. Assessors at POPLA have no contact with parties or with the BPA, who are in fact located in a different part of the country. Quite simply, we are as completely removed and independent of the BPA …””
Have Wright Hassall named their assessors? Can they evidence that they are independant from the BPA and the PPCs when they operate on behalf of PPCs?

Have Wright Hassall named their assessors?


hell no , they have hired some part time barristas from the IPC

rachieb77

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

I'd welcome any comments on the following response before I email it off tomorrow:

EMAIL CONTENT
I am writing further to your letter dated 7 April 2016, which I received on 11 April 2016. I attach a copy of my original appeal for your information.

Firstly, I would like to clarify that my original appeal was not purely based on the PCN not being a GPEOL. My appeal also contained two other valid reasons for appeal.

These reasons should have also been considered by POPLA at the time of my appeal in February 2015 and I do not understand why my appeal was classed purely as a GPEOL case. Therefore my appeal should not be judged on the GPEOL reason alone.

The other two reasons, which I know have resulted in POPLA always and without fail finding in favour of the consumer appellant, are:

2) Notice to Keeper issued by the Operator outside of POFA 2012 timescales
As I am under no obligation to disclose the name of the driver and no evidence of the driver's identity has been presented, the only route by which I can be found to be liable for the parking charge is as the keeper of the vehicle.

In order for this liability to exist, the Operator must demonstrate compliance with a number of provisions contained within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) failed to meet the obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. Specifically it did not arrive within the timescales stipulated in the POFA Act 2012, Schedule 4, Point 8 (5).

The requirements of the Act clearly state that for a NTK to be valid, it must be delivered not later than 56 days starting with the day after the PCN is issued.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle
8(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6 (1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
8 (4)The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
8 (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

The NTK is dated 17 December 2014 and was delivered on 19 December 2014. Please see attached scanned copy of the NTK as evidence of the letter date. This is 74 days after the date that the PCN was issued, meaning that the Operator failed to demonstrate the required compliance and it was too late to invoke keeper liability.

The Operator therefore does not have the right to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report:
''Service of notices
A notice to keeper issued on the basis of evidence obtained using automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) should arrive on or before the fourteenth day after the parking event. Where a parking charge notice is fixed to the vehicle or handed to the driver, a traditional ‘parking ticket’, then a notice to keeper issued following that, should arrive between the twenty eighth and the fifty sixth day after the parking event. If these timescales are not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass under Schedule 4.''

3) No evidence of the Operator's proprietary interest in the land or authority to issue and enforce PCNs in respect of the site
Despite my request to provide evidence of proprietary interest in the land, the Operator has failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate:

1) It is the land-owner; or
2) That they have written authorisation from the landowner to operate on the land in question and issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site (as set out in paragraph 7 of the British Parking Association's Code of Practice).

The Operator’s implied assertion to that effect is insufficient to show that any authority has been granted. Therefore I do not see how the Operator has sufficient rights in the land to enter into contracts in respect of it.

If this is the basis of their charge, I demand that the Operator provides myself and Wright Hassall with a copy of the contract proving they have proprietary interest in the land in question or written authorisation from the land owner to issue and enforce PCNs in respect of the site. I do not accept subsequent so-called witness statements as an alternative.

In relation to this point, I would like to reference a very recent case in Cardiff (April 2016) concerning parking charges issued by New Generation Parking Management (NGPM) where the judge ruled that NGPM had no right to operate on the land due to insufficient evidence and all PCNs issued and sued for were nulled.

Other points in relation to my appeal
With regard to the proposed process for my appeal, I would like to make the following points:

1) Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator states in the POPLA 2015 Annual Report that: "At POPLA, Assessors consider the evidence produced by each party, all of which evidence the other party has the opportunity to see and comment upon…it is certainly a basic principle of a fair appeals service that each party is given the opportunity to see the other party’s case and to comment upon it. This is the position at POPLA. Appellants should obviously receive the operator’s evidence in its entirety.''

As the Operator is being given the opportunity to view and comment on my additional evidence then, based on the POPLA position quoted above, I should be given the same opportunity to view and comment on any additional evidence they submit and be given sufficient additional time to do this.

If I am not given this opportunity, then Wright Hassall (acting under the brand of POPLA) are denying my right to a fair appeals service.

2) Your letter states that Wright Hassall have been appointed by the BPA to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of POPLA, and that you are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.

Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator states in the POPLA 2015 Annual Report that “I might add that each case is carefully considered, not by an anonymous decision maker but rather by a named Assessor. I really do not see how anything less could be considered fair and open. Assessors at POPLA have no contact with parties or with the BPA, who are in fact located in a different part of the country. Quite simply, we are as completely removed and independent of the BPA …””.

Your letter does not provide a named Assessor, which means according to POPLA the appeal process cannot be "considered fair and open".

In addition, I understand Wright Hassall operate on behalf of private parking companies. This calls into question your competence and ability to judge my appeal independently and fairly.

What evidence can you provide that this is not the case and that you are independent of the BPA despite operating on behalf of private parking companies?

Yours sincerely................