Metrolink / Railways POFA?

Daver

I have been following a thread by Tentatively regarding their successful defence against a Scam invoice issued by careparking. One thing that has caught my attention is a statement that they have copied from the BPA website relating to the adjournment of tickets issued on railway land which states
'There has been a delay in POPLA considering appeals against parking tickets issued on land subject to Byelaw. This was due to relevant stakeholders clarifying with government whether Notices issued under Railway Byelaws could be heard by POPLA.
POPLA has now received confirmation from the Department for Transport that it considers issuing penalties on Byelaws land a legitimate practice. It has also confirmed that as a matter of good practice – parking operators should offer an independent appeal against such penalties.
Due to the lack of progress on government guidance the British Parking Association (BPA) took the decision to remove the requirement for parking operators to signpost motorists to POPLA for penalty charges issued under byelaws from 18 September 2017. The BPA has now instructed its operators to signpost motorists to independent appeal for all penalties issued on Byelaws land after 1 November 2018.
There are a considerable number of adjourned appeals within the POPLA system. It was thought that we would hear these appeals once we received clarification from the government. However, the parking operators in question have taken the decision to not contest these appeals. This does not mean the notices were issued incorrectly – the parking operators have made this decision due to the significant delay. All motorists with appeals adjourned for this reason will have the penalties cancelled and will receive notification in due course.'
'

Does this mean that the parking operators can now use POFA 2012 on railway land ( not relevant land according to POFA) or just that they can issue tickets and offer POPLA, if the former applies does this now make the argument that POFA doesn't apply on non relevant land obsolete?

Fruitcake

It means PoPLA is now available (as it should have always been according to the ADR Act 2015) where it wasn't before for Byelaw cases.

Nothing else has changed. All of PoFA applies on relevant land but only in England and Wales. Parts of it don't apply on non-relevant land. (The PoFA actually says which parts don't apply on non relevant land.)
The DfT have said that parking scammers can issue tickets (PCNs) where Byelaws apply, but must offer an independent appeals service.

The statement from the DfT is that The Owner is liable in these cases. PoPLA has said that it is assumed that The Keeper is presumed to be The Owner unless proved otherwise. The DfT says no such thing. PoPLA have made that bit up.

twhitehousescat

quote the BPA

"They say "While POFA 2012 does not apply on Railway Land" - NO, IT'S ONLY SCHEDULE 4 OF POFA THAT DOES NOT APPLY - the rest of POFA does apply because the rest of POFA is not restricted to "relevant land"

(borrowed from pepipoo)


so many holes and mistakes by the BPA ,its a joke

as the 6 mth timeout still applies , let them waste there £27 on popla

I wonder how many will?

any ticket that is sent that is on bylaw land should NOT refer to POPLa , and should be called a penalty notice (PN)

as this is a matter for the magistrates , and not civil , one wonders if POPLa will be handling shooting offences next

Daver

Well for the motorist this is good news, the PPC's will get themselves tangled up with this one to be sure!

twhitehousescat

however , a large percentage will simply pay up

quoted many yrs ago at a BPA seminar , about 40% pay up on first ticket , and about another 25% on reminder , this was before the days of IPC and roboclaims , I would imagine of the remaining 35% at least 25-30% would pay up on a LBC or court papers

Daver

Can anyone clarify the following, this seems to have turned into a bit of a fiasco as the PC doesn't read correspondence properly. The keeper appealed in their name by email to the PC ( Careparking)not naming the driver but used the email address belonging to a family member and attached a PDF appeal document and signed the email in their name, however the parking operator replied with a rejection letter and popla code in the name of the email owner so effectively they are pursuing neither the driver nor the keeper but the owner of an email address! as the PC have lodged the POPLA code in the name of the email address owner this has been back and forth with POPLA asking for letters of authority first for the keeper to allow the email owner to act on their behalf then for the owner to act on behalf of the email owner! This would all seem to be a pretty much irrelevant exercise though as the PC has never applied for the keepers details due to them appealing at day 26 with the template letter from the newbies thread and has never issued a NTK by their own admission so I would expect it will get canned by POPLA.
Are POPLA likely to find in favour of the appellant because the PC is pursuing the wrong person, i.e the email address owner who was neither the driver nor the RK?
:wall::xmassign:::xmastree:

nosferatu1001

Well POPLA have no choice but to cancel, as the appellant has no liability in the matter
COMplaint to the BPA would have made sense
The PPC issued a code in the wrong name.

The_Deep

Complain to your MP

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Daver

….they have done this 3 times now for 3 different tickets! plus issued evidence with photo's of their signs on site....only they are different signs than the ones on site, said they have obtained the keepers details, referring to 'his details' when the keeper is female and was the appellant originally,, until they issued the code in the wrong name...then said they haven't needed to obtain the keepers details as the keeper had appealed...…...an absolute shambles and a comedy of errors on their behalf!:rotfl:
To think the DVLA is actively sharing our personal details with these incompetent clowns! makes my blood boil!

Daver

...and yes...I'll complain to my local MP, the BPA, head of POPLA etc.