FISTRAL BEACH, Newquay, Inital Parking.. please help!!

Umkomaas

POPLA is a one stage process and I cannot overturn a decision because I disagree with an assessor’s interpretation of evidence or legislation. I must be true to process and although I accept that POPLA does not come out from this well, I cannot change the decision.

Suggest he sacks the assessor(s), the complaints handler and their trainer(s).

Ask him to check how many similar decisions have been misinterpreted by (poorly) trained assessors, how many motorists have been so misdirected, and what is he going to do about it. A professional outfit just cannot simply brush aside a seemingly systemic failure by (long-term) assessors as a 'blip'. Threaten and involve your MP to heap pressure on this failing organisation that has so much impact on innocent people's lives.

MinnieSox9

okay I've checked the acronyms on the newbies thread and I see that PPC = our forum shorthand only, for 'private parking company'.


I have sent Steve copies of both NTK I received.


I will look at replying to John Gallagher also!


So my next stage is to email initial parking themselves stating that the lead adjudicator agrees that the popla decision was WRONG!
do you suggest that I just attach the email correspondence between myself and John? and in an email ask for the NTK to be overturned?

Coupon-mad

I'd wait a day or two and see what Steve Clark comes back with. He sometimes 'encourages' an errant PPC to cancel and clearly (I reckon) he wants to check if the PCN referenced the POFA/that the keeper would be liable, which is not allowed.

Show Steve Clark both sides of the NTK.

I am pleased to see a reasoned & correct reply (at last) from POPLA, after the Complaints Team failed re the simple task of 'adding up to 14 without using a calendar and getting it wrong', which is hardly rocket science. I use my keyboard calendar when doing these checks, and count ''one, two, three'' from the day after the parking event, just to be certain that I get 'day 14' right.

The LondonCouncils version of POPLA always got it right. It is SIMPLE.

Just wanted to add from experience, this is just not true:

It is rare that an operator will send a Notice to Keeper once the deadline to do so has passed.

Not true at all.

Just because POPLA don't see many such cases does not mean it is 'rare' for PPCs to issue a non POFA (late) PCN in the post. Some do it routinely and don't use the Act at all. Some issue them late with the POFA on them.

Shamefully, the real reason why POPLA rarely see it, is because:

(a) scared victim registered keepers just pay, thinking it's a fine with a discount
(b) scared victims appeal as driver, thinking it's a fine with a discount deadline


Horrendously few cases even go to POPLA stage (which is NOT a good thing BPA, and NOT an indicator that private PCNs are mostly accepted by drivers as fair!) so it is undoubtedly true that every year, THOUSANDS OF REGISTERED KEEPERS are paying non POFA PCNs that they were never liable for.

That is why POPLA rarely see these, because the system is weighted against the man in the street who, even if they get to POPLA stage, either have already blabbed about being the driver (sigh...) or were not the driver but have no idea how to raise the POFA issue.

London Councils POPLA - a proper appeals service with well trained people - used to check for the 14 days anyway, even if the appellant didn't mention the law. And the 'proper (original) POPLA' in 2013-15 used to change decisions when they admitted they were wrong.

MinnieSox9

this is such an eye opener, as this is the first time ive ever received a NTK, and to be honest if it wasn't for looking on here and all your guys replies I to be honest would have been just a scared victim and panic paid !

Coupon-mad

This is all good because the issues are out in the open, you are learning from it but clearly POPLA are too. At least John Gallagher and Craig Ineson get it.

Redx

I just think that it beggars belief that POPLA didnt , considering the POFA act is 7 years old and London Councils used to get the maths right 5 or 6 YEARS ago

you can even put the date option into google and find out how many days after is a cutoff date , I have done this on numerous occasions when calculating the last date for a defence to be submitted , by adding 33 days to a date

I am surprised they dont have an app or macro for doing this simple task that I am sure my grandkids could do when they were at primary school

it also highlights the fact that POPLA or the Ombudsman Service should have a proper complaints procedure instead of sitting on a pedestal with their fingers in their ears singing LA LA LA when criticised

as you say , good to see some real honesty at long last , but I do hope that the MHCLG will put proper checks in place and have some form of appeal or complaints procedure in order to stop errors from happening

the way to improve a service is learn from complaints and feedback , ask Boeing (who thought they were ok on their lofty pedestals too until the MAX8 scandal hit) - even their own workers knew , a bit like we are hearing about the Grenfell fiasco where they knew cladding would burn

Coupon-mad

I agree. They have ONE JOB as regards the only tiny bit of law they bother to look at.

Equality Act? DPA? GDPR? Consumer Rights Act?

Not POPLA's Remit.

POFA with it's REALLY SIMPLE calculation in an Act that is been law since 2012 and is really easy to read and train people about?

ALL three Assessors failed to count to 14, even the long term Complaints Team.

Redx

I cannot imagine the training they would have to go through for the CRA 2015 , GDPR 2018 , EQUALITY ACT 2010 , but it should definitely BE IN THEIR REMIT

you have to ask yourself , who decides on the remit, and why are they ignoring the laws of the land in their convoluted yet very short remit

they should be forced to consider every law there is when dealing with these cases , like a judge might construe in a court of law , because POPLA is supposed to be an alternative ADR to a court case, yet we see many a popla decision overturned in court (and IAS decisions too)

there was some talk on making the Equality Act a mandatory option in that it could be reported to a body and that body would decide if court action was necessary , to take it away from the individual and not have the individual paying for it , but the perpetrators, to put the boot firmly on the other foot


I would love to see a scheme where you can report an EA2010 failure and have it investigated , possibly taken to court by an official body, with powers to enforce any decisions

Coupon-mad

Not an expert but I read the CRA, including studying schedule 2 and the CMA Guidance on that Act, in one evening before the Southampton case, then (after sleeping on it) made notes off the top of my head in a book at 6.30am the next morning on the station platform.

POFA Schedule 4 = easy for anyone. It is so short.

Equality Act = more to it but 'reasonable adjustments' are easy to understand.

DPA and GDPR = more to it but the basics about data processing are easy to understand.

All these Acts are worded in plain English and could be trained to a team, then you could have them double check each other's understanding. POPLA could have done this.

Then the Supervisory staff could do regular spot checks 'as and when' on Assessments before they are communicated (to stop bad ones, if they could) and maybe use software that (instead of churning out 'The Beavis case says no'' trashy and embarrassingly INCORRECT reasoning), it might say ''You have mentioned the POFA in your rational(sic) - do you wish to check the Act and deadlines using this table?''

Then it could spoon feed the Assessors 'day one, day two' etc.

Won't happen.

nosferatu1001

I would point out to POPLA that, as they have admitted their mistake, and as they wont intervene to prevent this from possibly going to court, that should this end up in court they will be claimed against, as their negligence in their duties - gross negligence, as they cannot count to 14 - has been admitted by them.