Help please - have i made a mistake?

Standupforyourself

i have received a reply from POPLA. Shall i post it in full here, unredacted?

KeithP

Standupforyourself wrote: »

i have received a reply from POPLA. Shall i post it in full here, unredacted?

No, obviously not.

Why on earth would you consider posting an unredacted document on any public forum?

Standupforyourself

ha ha. Sorry, of course i wont include any names, reg Nos, etc. I meant shall i publish the response in full, or just the gist of it

Standupforyourself

here it is in part:

It is important to explain that it is not our remit to source evidence and documents from either party in support of their submission and our decisions are based on the evidence received from both parties at the time of the assessment. The decision reached is based on the information made available to the assessor at the time.

The operator has very clearly confirmed that the land they manage is not subject to statutory land and is operated under a contract. The signage at the site states, “Up to 4 hours £4.00…Ilfracombe Town Council is not involved in the parking management of this car park & cannot intervene in any disputes…If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100.” If the site was relevant land, there would be a penalty charge notice referenced on the signage.

Whilst I acknowledge that the review of the contract with the operator does not specifically rebut or address your claim that the car park not being relevant land I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence within the remainder of the appeal response to confirm that the site is relevant land and that parking charges are issued as contracted by the landowner and not penalty charges as would be issued within bylaws cases.

Further, the operator itself has highlighted within its own evidence the following in respect of the land it manages, “We note the Appellant’s reasons for appeal, and their belief that the car park is not
‘relevant land’, however, we would advise that these points are irrelevant and have been disproven on previous occasions through the POPLA process and other external challenges. The car park is relevant land as, for example, it has never been subject to statutory control, is maintained by Premier Park and operated under contract”.

I have reviewed the assessor’s decision and I am satisfied that the outcome reached is correct. POPLA is a one-stage process; there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.

Coupon-mad

Make a written complaint by name, by POST, marked 'strictly private and personal - addressee only' to John Gallagher.

This time enclose the full printed LGO decision, and state that this is a formal complaint about both Assessors, who are both in error, and this is so shocking it needs the Lead Adjudicator to step in and ensure they are trained properly on the issue of 'relevant land'.

The errors are as follows. The second assessor said wrongly:
1. ''The operator has very clearly confirmed that the land they manage is not subject to statutory land and is operated under a contract.''

Assessors need to be trained to understand what the Local Government Ombudsman understood in the complaint they handled, namely that Councils cannot operate (or allow a private firm to operate) their land as if it was under contract, and specifically CANNOT allow their contractors to say a keeper is liable.

2. ''I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence within the remainder of the appeal response to confirm that the site is relevant land and that parking charges are issued as contracted by the landowner and not penalty charges as would be issued within bylaws cases.''
Assessors need to be trained to understand why the above statement conflates two completely different things, and is an horrendous error for POPLA to make.

'Relevant land' is not just about railway byelaws and penalties. The LGO complaint confirms the truth about COUNCIL OWNED LAND, which remains 'not relevant land' even if the Council is trying to operate it outwith statutory control. The LGO found as fact that whether or not a Council was using the relevant statutory enforcement rules was 'irrelevant'. The land remains at ALL times 'not relevant land'.

3. If Mr Gallagher will not revisit this complaint and step in and declare the Assessors in error, say that you will be making a FORMAL COMPLAINT to the Local Government Ombudsman about Ilfracombe Council, who are allowing their contractor to operate and mislead keepers in the same way as the Kent Council case the LGO has already decided on, and in evidence you WILL supply POPLA's erroneous decisions to the LGO to show them that POPLA are wrong and supporting parking firms with no understanding whatsoever that this has nothing to do with (POPLA Assessor's own words) ''penalty charges as would be issued within bylaws cases''.

4. For the avoidance of doubt, this is NOT and never was a bylaws case and it seems POPLA have completely and utterly misunderstood, and have failed a consumer. This case had NOTHING to do with 'penalties' or bylaws'.

Ask for Mr Gallagher's response, signed by him, after a full investigation of what exactly is going wrong, such that the REALY SIMPLE fact of the applicable law - that Council owned land can NEVER be 'relevant land' - has been so badly lost in translation in all the recent hoo-hah about penalties & bylaws.



OMG. Hate to say I told you so, I said NOT to just wait:

Originally Posted by Standupforyourself View Post
had an initial response saying my complaint will be looked at within next 21 days. Will follow up after i hear their formal response.

If you didn't mention & attach the LGO complaint, reply with it and the words I gave you and ask for this email & attachment to be added to your complaint, as POPLA are clearly erring and out of line with other Ombudsman services who appear to understand 'relevant land' better than Assessors for POPLA, which is unacceptable.

DO NOT just wait and see.

They won't review your complaint time & again - you get ONE chance at review.

Have you fielded everything we suggested? Add it now, in reply to POPLA, if not.

Standupforyourself

thanks Coupon

I did quote the LGO report but i did not attach it to my letter of complaint. I absolutely will act on the above, today if possible.

Standupforyourself

Hi All

Long time...

Firstly, I did send the letter to POPLA back in May. Zero response.

Second, the registered keeper has this week received a letter from BW Legal and Premier Park (all in the same envelope) saying that the debt claim has now been passed to BW. It says keeper needs to respond within 14 days.

Does keeper need to send a response now and if so what is the advice?

thanks all

waamo

Standupforyourself wrote: »

Hi All

Long time...

Firstly, I did send the letter to POPLA back in May. Zero response.

Second, the registered keeper has this week received a letter from BW Legal and Premier Park (all in the same envelope) saying that the debt claim has now been passed to BW. It says keeper needs to respond within 14 days.

Does keeper need to send a response now and if so what is the advice?

thanks all

That is a bog standard debt collectors letter that can be ignored.

Standupforyourself

yeah thought it was but wanted to check. Need to wait for a LBC which will clearly be labelled as such i assume?

Le_Kirk

Standupforyourself wrote: »

yeah thought it was but wanted to check. Need to wait for a LBC which will clearly be labelled as such i assume?

It should be marked LOC/LBA/LBCC but might not, the way to know is if it gives you 30 days to pay/respond, comes complete with financial forms (which you do NOT complete) and supplies their Particulars of Claim with all the evidence that they are going to rely on in court.