Is New POPLA really independent or a sham ??

beamerguy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5535294

Half_way

Old POPLA, New POPLA either which way, who are the paymasters?
The whole thing is a charade, from the BPA ltd, being seen as some sort of authority, to the Code of practice, and a so called independent appeals service.
All there to make the BPA appear as a credible authority, and to make the antics of the private parking companies appear fully legitimate and on the same level as local authority 'fines' both in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of the public, hence all the I've been fined by so and so parking as well as all the media stories about fines/penalties etc

pappa_golf

lets see ,( if POPLa are proved that bylaw cases were non relevant land) how they squirm , when people ask for refunds on cases where a popla appeal went with the PPC and TOLD people to pay

bargepole

The reality is that the original POPLA operated by London Councils, after some early teething issues, worked reasonably well on the whole, with cases given to legally trained assessors who were able to properly adjudicate on the legal arguments. This meant that in most cases, forum-assisted appeals would win for the motorist.

However, there was a contractual time-bomb ticking away here, because the full cost of operating the service needed to be paid for by the BPA, and when the invoices from London Councils started arriving, the BPA started squirming, and only recently had to dig out £511,000 from the petty cash tin to settle outstanding debts. Failure to pay would have meant that London Councils would have been forced to take the BPA to court, as a public body they cannot allow London council tax payers to subsidise a private organisation.

So over a year ago, the BPA terminated that contract, and awarded the service to Ombudsman Services Ltd on a fixed price contract basis. OS do not employ legally trained assessors, they have customer service people on minimum wage. It is rumoured that the volume of appeals OS are receiving is massively in excess of what they were expecting, and all their assessors seem to do is select various paragraphs of template text in response to each appeal, so it's literally a coin toss as to whether the appeal will be allowed or dismissed.

The example shown in the link above is certainly worthy of complaint, as the motorist is always told that the decision is final, and therefore the same should apply to the operator. However the ISPA are in disarray as their chairperson has suddenly resigned, so it's difficult to know who to complain to.

It's not quite as bad yet as the IAS, but it's moving in that direction.

Guys_Dad

Another excellent summary from Bargepole. But the worrying thing for us is the bit that reads "all their assessors seem to do is select various paragraphs of template text in response to each appeal, so it's literally a coin toss as to whether the appeal will be allowed or dismissed."

This is why, in my view, stock template appeals need something else, preferably as point 1 so it will be read. If a poorly paid minimum wage assessor is presented with a "We've seen this template appeal before, where is my template rejection", then that lessens any chance of a successful appeal.

If you have a genuine point, such as an out of time NtK, proof of a double dip etc, then that is your appeal point 1. The other stock points should be "In addition, I wish to appeal on the following as well...."

Bluntly, one can hardly accuse the assessors of not reading some of the War and Peace length appeals full of cut and paste excesses that have appeared on her over the years.

Keep appeals precise, short and simple.

beamerguy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Bluntly, one can hardly accuse the assessors of not reading some of the War and Peace length appeals full of cut and paste excesses that have appeared on her over the years.

Keep appeals precise, short and simple.

If it was as long as "war and peace" or "the bible", that is no excuse as they have a responsibility to assess correctly which they appear not to be doing

Northlakes

It's particularly annoying as some assessors haven't been trained properly and don't know the legislation.
I refer in particular to late delivery of NTK's where POFA 2012 is quite clear in the wording.

Herzlos

Ombudsman services was set up to handle complaints with service providers, not assess the legal basis for disputed claims, so none of them are trained properly.

Guys_Dad

beamerguy wrote: »

If it was as long as "war and peace" or "the bible", that is no excuse as they have a responsibility to assess correctly which they appear not to be doing

You are, of course, correct. However, if we advise complaining about poor signage contributing to drivers missing the message, there is a certain irony in assessors not picking up genuine 100% winners such as late NTK etc because it is buried in stock appeal points they must see hundreds of times.

My advice was based upon how to get round the apparent problem of poorly trained assessors, which is in our hands, rather than better training or higher calibre assessors which is not in our control.