Ethical Parking CBC and Brighton & Hove Council

Coupon-mad

This is quite similar to the way the London Boroughs of Greenwich and Islington use Wing Parking, who admit that their charges do not fall within the POFA on that HA land.

It would be interesting to see if Ethical claim 'keeper liability' in these cases.

twhitehousescat

Dear Mrs POPLa

the charge against me is one that is on land owned by Brighton & Hove Council , and as such does not come under the remit of POFa . please see enclosed docs shoeing contract with ethical

as the land is non applicable to POFa2012 it cannot be adjudicated on.

POFa2012 states that any PPC must offer an independent appeals service , in this case you cannot act.
Please foward the name and address of a independent appeals service that can look into this case

luv n kisses

irate tenement

HO87

twhitehousescat wrote: »

Dear Mrs POPLa

the charge against me is one that is on land owned by Brighton & Hove Council , and as such does not come under the remit of POFa . please see enclosed docs shoeing contract with ethical

as the land is non applicable to POFa2012 it cannot be adjudicated on

Why not? POPLA has recently announced that it will adjudicate on byelaws cases and that involves land that is not relevant. As C-M has alluded to Wing Parking use a somewhat unique appeals process in the LB's/ALMCO's that they operate for - even if they still go to POPLA. The issue is whether the ATA's are prepared to accept someone using an ADR outside their arrangements. One is tempted to suggest that provided an additional "non-standard" ADR fee was paid no one would bat an eyelid.

twhitehousescat wrote: »

POFa2012 states that any PPC must offer an independent appeals service , in this case you cannot act.

Obviously something I've missed. What Schedule 4 actually specifies is that notices must include details of any arrangements for informally dealing with complaints together with arrangements for referring disputes and complaints to independent adjudication or arbitration. It does not say that those arrangements must exist just that if they do details must be shown on notices.

twhitehousescat wrote: »

Please foward the name and address of a independent appeals service that can look into this case

luv n kisses

irate tenement

Would that be "tenant"?

twhitehousescat

actually if you go and read the POPLA website that is NOT what POPLa have said

they state that "we did not have the remit to consider if a Byelaw had been breached. "

and have stated that they will now hear cases

so the cases they hear will decide if a bylaw has been broken , super , smashing !

a: you have btoken a bylaw

b: you have not broken a bylaw


what happens then , in the case of a:? POPLa will have adjudicated that it was a bylaw , this is non applicable gor court action by PPC , the PPC cannot hand thos info over to the TOC , and the chances are after the PPC appeal , the POPLa stages , it will have timed out

peter_the_piper

I'm sure, in the last few weeks, there has been a council that has had to refund oodles of parking tickets because they employed a ppc to use the ppc model on council land. For the life of me I can't find a link though.

The_Deep

Was it not Wycombe?

Iguana_En_Fuego

Well, the RK received the NTK on 01/02/17, dated 30/01/17 for the screen ticket issued on 28/12/16. I can not find any reference for appealing on-line, so imagine that a postal challenge to the PO Box that Ethical use will be required. Unless there is any specific wording, I intend to use the BPA 1st Stage appeal template and post around 22/23 February to arrive within the 28 day window 'stipulated' by Ethical. I need to get a copy of the original NTD to compare against the NTK and start lining up the my ducks for POPLA.

Coupon-mad

Good.

And get a free certificate of posting from your local PO Counter (never signed-for, to a PPC and certainly not to a PO Box).

twhitehousescat

HO87 wrote: »

Why not? POPLA has recently announced that it will adjudicate on byelaws cases and that involves land that is not relevant. As C-M has alluded to Wing Parking use a somewhat unique appeals process in the LB's/ALMCO's that they operate for - even if they still go to POPLA. The issue is whether the ATA's are prepared to accept someone using an ADR outside their arrangements. One is tempted to suggest that provided an additional "non-standard" ADR fee was paid no one would bat an eyelid.


Obviously something I've missed. What Schedule 4 actually specifies is that notices must include details of any arrangements for informally dealing with complaints together with arrangements for referring disputes and complaints to independent adjudication or arbitration. It does not say that those arrangements must exist just that if they do details must be shown on notices.


Would that be "tenant"?

and to state again , in the case of railways POPLa have actually said differently


http://ispa.co.uk/hs-view/Minutes%20-%20IS...l%20version.pdf

page 4

2. POPLA and appeal process for Railway Land
There is a meeting on 27th January 2017 to discuss this issues. John Gallagher decided to
make a decision on the outstanding cases as they could not stay adjourned, he concluded
that he would allow them all. He has invited the Operators to withdraw them and will allow
the rest. He is meeting with with the DVLA, DCLG and the Railway Operators on the 27
January 2017 to agree the process including the appeals.
If you park in a railway car park it will be a criminal case and they will allow clamping, which
does not seem good practice.
One possibility is the DVLA to say that operators can continue to use POPLA but this means all
appeals will be dismissed. Currently they are bound by the decision where the appellant is
not. The alternative will be to take POPLA out of the equation and then it is pursued through
the criminal system

Would that be "tenant"?


no it would not

Iguana_En_Fuego

The RK posted the BPA Template challenge to Ethical on 22/02/17 and received the expected rejection letter dated 23/02/17 on 25/02/17. A valid POLPA code has been issued (checked on Parking Cowboys site). The RK has until 23/03/17 to appeal to POPLA, so off to POPLA we go :j

Link to Drop Box where I have put edited copies of correspondence and signage at the site:

xxx.dropbox.com/sh/7usssvuopl1q5iy/AACzngpc__3j0tSNCQboFn8Ka?dl=0

Just two queries I would appreciate a bit of support on:-

1) NTD / NTK and Schedule 4 of the POFA - what I should be looking for - there are obvious differences, i.e. the NTD refers to a Contractural Breach Charge whilst the NTK refers to a Parking Charge Notice. I will go through Schedule 4 and compare.
2) I am not fully up to speed with the relevant land part, the B&HCC Highway terrier shows the main roads as being adopted / under council control, however, some parts of the estate roads are not shown. Does have any effect?