This PCN was not issued under POFA - CTT Collections

Umkomaas

Remind her of the instructions the BPA gave to their membership after being told to do so by the DVLA. This is what they said:

“the following practices may be considered as Code breaches and must not be continued:
• Asking the motorist to enter into additional correspondence to obtain a POPLA code
• Failing to include a correct and/or valid POPLA Code within the Rejection correspondence
• Issuing a POPLA Code with a date identifier which is significantly different from the date of rejection
• Appearing to indicate that the issue of a POPLA Code is conditional on driver details being supplied “

Particularly reminder her that she should very carefully read the first sentence, which clearly shows that what is happening in your case is very much a breach of the Code of Practice, and by her own words, needs to be investigated.

This means that whilst we will address any actual breaches of the code of practice by our members’ .............

thegentleway

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Read LoveNorfolk's efforts dealing with the same thing from the BPA.

Thanks Coupon-mad, I've read that thread. I'm not sure what breaches CTT have committed in this instance though?

Umkomaas wrote: »

Remind her of the instructions the BPA gave to their membership after being told to do so by the DVLA. This is what they said:

“the following practices may be considered as Code breaches and must not be continued:
• Asking the motorist to enter into additional correspondence to obtain a POPLA code
• Failing to include a correct and/or valid POPLA Code within the Rejection correspondence
• Issuing a POPLA Code with a date identifier which is significantly different from the date of rejection
• Appearing to indicate that the issue of a POPLA Code is conditional on driver details being supplied “

Particularly reminder her that she should very carefully read the first sentence, which clearly shows that what is happening in your case is very much a breach of the Code of Practice, and by her own words, needs to be investigated.

Thanks Umkomaas. I have replied to Joanna highlighting this breach.

Umkomaas

thegentleway wrote: »

Thanks Umkomaas. I have replied to Joanna highlighting this breach.

Don't be surprised if a further weasel-worded response is returned. But at least you have 'pulled her up' and she may choose her brush-off remarks more carefully in future.

I've no hard evidence, other than reading her responses over the past couple of months, but I get the impression she is not that au fait with the finer details of this stuff and her rather bolshy replies are a cover for this.

Nowhere near as polite or professional as Steve Clarke who previously dealt with such complaints.

thegentleway

Here's the response from Joanna:

Good morning,

Thank you for your email, the comments of which have been duly noted.

As outlined in our previous response, the BPA is a membership association. We are not a regulatory or governing body. As we are not a regulatory, or governing body, this means we have no legal authority over our members. Because of that, the best course of action that a motorist can firstly take, is to highlight their concerns to the parking operator, by doing so, this will enable them the opportunity to address the issues that the motorist has.

The way to highlight these concerns would be to follow the company’s internal complaints process, or in this instance, since a PCN was generated, to follow the appeals process. In the event that the parking operator rejects an appeal, if they are a BPA member, the motorist then may have recourse to appeal further via the independent parking appeals service, POPLA, and as outlined before, they will also inform us if they identify any breach of our code.

In this case, it is evident that the appeals process has not been completed. Therefore they have not had the opportunity to respond to you as per the appeals process. Therefore, moving forward, it is our recommendation that you continue the appeals process directly with the operator first, and provide them with the details they have requested so as to give them the opportunity to assist you.

Once the appeals process has ended, should you feel there has been a breach, then we will of course be happy to look into this further. For now, we would respectfully ask that you continue the appeals process with the operator.

Umkomaas

Another fob-off.

Why not escalate this to the DVLA, copying them in all the correspondence, and highlighting especially the BPA's instruction to members, which by their latest response to you, they are failing to enforce.

It's all very well for PPCs to chase the public for not adhering to requirements, but somehow they don't seem to like following suit!

FOI@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

pappa_golf

but , this is clearly railway land (look who hired them) any case involving bylaws is on hold , so how can joanne say that "Please also note that if an appeal is then rejected by the parking operator, the motorist may also have recourse to the independent appeals service known as POPLA (Parking On Private Land Appeals). "

when there is a hold on such cases

or perhaps joanne can define the word "may"

thegentleway

Thanks, I have complained to DVLA. Didn't know byelaw cases were on hold. Does that mean a long wait for POPLA outcome?

pappa_golf

on hold for about a month whilst they decide if they can do bylaw cases or not


if they say no , then this will cause the PPCs problems , as they have to offer an independent appeal system


plan B: will they all move to the IPC

Redx

thegentleway wrote: »

Thanks, I have complained to DVLA. Didn't know byelaw cases were on hold. Does that mean a long wait for POPLA outcome?

the POPLA website has the details

Coupon-mad

https://popla.co.uk/

HTH