BPA Operational Service Board meeting May 17.

bergkamp

Some very interesting information in the 41 pages, including;

SRC report updates the board on prevailing matters regarding POPLA
Ombudsman Services (OS) have advised they are losing money in providing the
POPLA service and in order for them to break even they will need an additional £1
per appeal. It was discussed whether this is a viable option and if there are any
other alternatives to assist POPLA with becoming more efficient. MA requested to
visit POPLA to help with efficiency
The current withdrawal rate as it has risen from 19% at the end of 2015 to 28% at
the end of 2016. It was agreed that operators who withdraw over 30% of their
POPLA cases a month will be charged full price for excess amount with the
possibility of sanctions.
Recommendations:
• Proposal to Increase the payments per appeal to OS by £1. Amended to:
POPLA would first receive an increase of 75p subject to certain caveats
including efficiency visit by MA and removal of 6 months clause –
AGREED
• Support the proposal that operators who withdraw over 30% of their
POPLA cases a month will be charged full price for excess amount –
AGREED

POPLA Withdrawals
3.1 At the launch of the OS version of POPLA, Officers were able to agree that there would
be no charge levied for a ‘withdrawn case’. This was well received by Operators and seen as
a positive benefit.
3.2 Concerns were expressed at the time that some Operators may seek to abuse process
by rejecting all first line appeals by motorists and then withdrawing the vast majority/all of the
cases that were referred to POPLA – based on the premise that the majority of appellants do
not proceed to POPLA.
3.3 The ongoing rate of withdrawals has risen steadily from 19% at the end of 2015 to 31%
at the end of March 2017 – with 48% being withdrawn in December 2016 alone. Appendix A
to this Report provides more detail.
3.4 This is an unacceptable position and Officers have identified a number of Operators
withdrawing well over 50% of cases and in one instance 100% during the last couple of
months.
3.5 At the last Board Meeting, it was agreed that any Operators who withdraw over 30% of
their cases in a month will be charged full price for the excess amount. The four Operators
who this will affect the most have been written to, informed of this Board decision and
advised that they need to change their processes.

Spring SALE
In an effort to attract Members to us from the IPC, we have introduced a short-term initiative
whereby we will waive the AOS and IAS Joining Fees for any organisation who expresses
an interest in joining during spring 2017 – this offer can be excersised at any time. This has
seen 4 organisations respond positively so far, with 7 more leads being worked on.

MM asks if we know why IPC members are returning to BPA. APe
mentioned that there are a variety reasons but some common themes
included: the strength of the AOS/ BPA brand; commercial reasons; the
customer service approach of HQ; and access to support and knowledge.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Service%20Boards%20and%20Panels/170518_OSB_Agenda_and_Final_Papers.pdf

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Service%20Boards%20and%20Panels/20171805_OSB_Meeting_Notes_20171805.pdf

Edna_Basher

Given that when Ombudsman Services took on the POPLA contract they didn't even realise that this entailed providing an "appeals" service, it's not surprising that it's been running at a loss.

The BPA comments on the new POPLA service as follows:

It is interesting to note that the Operator ‘win’ proportion in October 2015 was 55% but this has improved markedly to an Operator ‘win’ proportion of 78% in March 2017.

The win proportion is nudging towards that of the IPC's IAS and the BPA's use of the word "improved" rather gives the game away.

Coupon-mad

Good find, bergkamp.

pappa_golf

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Given that when Ombudsman Services took on the POPLA contract they didn't even realise that this entailed providing an "appeals" service, it's not surprising that it's been running at a loss.

The BPA comments on the new POPLA service as follows:



The win proportion is nudging towards that of the IPC's IAS and the BPA's use of the word "improved" rather gives the game away.

however this does not take into account the hundreds or thousands of cases where the operator offers no evidence , and POPLa do not adjudicate

bergkamp

pappa_golf wrote: »

however this does not take into account the hundreds or thousands of cases where the operator offers no evidence , and POPLa do not adjudicate

That'll be the withdrawls then.

Withdrawals – there remains concerns about the high level of withdrawals for some operators. The board agreed with the proposal to write formally to all those members who are consistently over 30% and indicate what it would have cost if they had exceeded 30% within the current period (under the scheme agreed at the last board). It was agreed that the scheme will now be rolled out going forward.

Hardly surprising though, and the BPA knew it would happen;

POPLA Withdrawals

3.1 At the launch of the OS version of POPLA, Officers were able to agree that there would




be no charge levied for a ‘withdrawn case’. This was well received by Operators and seen as






a positive benefit.


3.2 Concerns were expressed at the time that some Operators may seek to abuse process


by rejecting all first line appeals by motorists and then withdrawing the vast majority/all of the




cases that were referred to POPLA – based on the premise that the majority of appellants do






not proceed to POPLA.


3.3 The ongoing rate of withdrawals has risen steadily from 19% at the end of 2015 to 31%




at the end of March 2017 – with 48% being withdrawn in December 2016 alone. Appendix A






to this Report provides more detail.


3.4 This is an unacceptable position and Officers have identified a number of Operators


withdrawing well over 50% of cases and in one instance 100% during the last couple of


months.

bergkamp

Status Report June 2017

POPLA – Ombudsman Services

OS have received 95,603 appeals since launch of which 30,276 have been withdrawn (31%). It is good to note that the downward trend in withdrawals continues after concerns were raised over the possible misuse of this process. POPLA assessors have made 60,497 decisions of which 69% have been in favour of the operator. The current split is 18,184 appeals allowed, a percentage of 31% in favour of the motorist, and 41,877 refused, a percentage of 69% in favour of the operator.

At the time of writing this report there are 112 members of the AOS ...

Castle

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Given that when Ombudsman Services took on the POPLA contract they didn't even realise that this entailed providing an "appeals" service, it's not surprising that it's been running at a loss.

The BPA comments on the new POPLA service as follows:



The win proportion is nudging towards that of the IPC's IAS and the BPA's use of the word "improved" rather gives the game away.

The "win" proportion is based on the number of appeals decided ; (which of course excludes the "withdrawn" ones). 44.79% of cases were withdrawn in March 2017, which means an overall "win" rate of 43.6% (being 78% of 55.2%).

Edna_Basher

It looks like the trend has continued for the rest of the year, as detailed in POPLA's Annual Report 2017

https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla-annual-report-2017-final.pdf?sfvrsn=2

The worst offenders for withdrawals were Smart (75%), Indigo (64%) and CEL (56%).

Of the "appeals" that POPLA decided upon, over 75% were refused.

bergkamp

Status Report Jan 2017

Mystery Shop – Mystery Shopper visits are continuing and we have now introduced tailored mystery shop visits whereby if we receive 5 or more complaints for one site, we will send an Area Manager to the site to check compliance.

Mystery Shopper Signage Checks - British Parking Association

pappa_golf

Edna_Basher wrote: »

It looks like the trend has continued for the rest of the year, as detailed in POPLA's Annual Report 2017

https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla-annual-report-2017-final.pdf?sfvrsn=2

The worst offenders for withdrawals were Smart (75%), Indigo (64%) and CEL (56%).

Of the "appeals" that POPLA decided upon, over 75% were refused.

those figues will now change , as indigo no longer have to issue POPLa codes for 64% of there cases (railway bylaws)

solved!!

Coupon-mad

Finally, we recognise that we are in an era of consumer distrust and this is evident across all sectors within which Ombudsman Services operates. Consumers are not just dissatisfied, they are angry and technology is giving them the tools to take out their frustration on businesses, parking operators and even the service providing an independent review. Over the past 12 months, POPLA has seen increased anger from members of the public. While we appreciate the emotion involved in a private parking appeal, abuse of our staff will not be tolerated, and we would ask that service users provide proportionate and constructive feedback to POPLA without abusing staff.

Wow. Sounds like they are blaming the public for being fed up to the back teeth of scam parking firms stalking & harassing people when they shop, or visit the Hospital or GP surgery, or dare to pick up their relatives from the Airport to keep them safe.

Really POPLA, you think this is just a normal part of today's Society? You want to slap down the victims of the bullies?

It seems to me POPLA is saying, how dare we have an opinion, and we should lie down and accept this scam. Why not open your eyes, POPLA, and see where this anger really stems from, and stop blaming the 'great unwashed' public for rising up.

In the case of parking firms the justified anger comes from clampers never actually being stopped, just moving on to the even worse threat of credit clamping, and the injustice of the Beavis 'decision' by the highest Court in the land, who swept aside hundreds of years of trite law, ignored precedents from other Countries (who made decisions the right, pro-Consumer rights, way in recent years) dismissed consumer laws (why?) and only had ONE Judge who saw through it as an unrecoverable penalty.

Money talks, Capita-owned PE won, versus the chap who was held up in Staples because their machine broke down. Coincidentally, I recall one of the Supreme Court Judges chuckled at the start that he would 'declare' that he had Capita shares...LOLs all round...

That's why the public are angry about parking firms, and POPLA when they make dreadful decisions throwing victims at the mercy of the county court with no safety net.

I hope everyone involved is proud of what they do. How people 'work' in this parasite industry is beyond me.