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

Le_Kirk

They cannot even spell rationale, and we expect them to count up to and beyond 14!

Castle

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

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.

Totally agree... the only question is:-
-Whether this is a breach of contract by POPLA or just a tort?

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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

Reading back through the PoPLA decisions throws up other cases where a keeper has gone to PoPLA even though the NTK was given too late for keeper liability to apply.

A Parking Lie "golden ticket" is a perfect egg-sample of this being a routine occurrence.

We see many others, even some where the PPC is saying they are not relying on the PoFA even though the NTK is too late for keeper liability to apply.

Then there are the court cases where a NTK has arrived too late but a keeper is still being pursued.


As for the OP's case not being the result of a procedural error, I disagree.

Part of the PoPLA procedure is to train its assessors. Reading the appeal, reading the PoFA, and correctly applying it is part of the appeal procedure.
This has obviously not been carried out to the professional standards one would and should expect.
Senior assessors have not been properly trained either.
Complaints were intercepted and not properly dealt with.
The original error was compounded by subsequent assessors which means the whole appeal procedure was incorrectly followed.

To me, all of those are procedural errors.

The only good thing to come out of this is that PoPLA have admitted they made a mistake, but it has cost the OP time, effort, and money to deal with this.
Unfortunately because the parking scamdustry is unregulated there is no recourse for financial compensation when a "customer" is mistreated, and repeatedly so.

MinnieSox9

Just received an email from Steve @ BPA!


“Xxxxxx
Thanks for supplying the requested copies.



I have been in dialogue with Initial and they have agreed to cancel both charges.



I know that friends on MSE have been interested in this case and they will want to know that I did identify what might have been a technical breach of the Code, hence the cancellations, and I have received appropriate assurances that a similar thing should not happen now - of course I will be keeping a close watch.



Hope that this is an appropriate resolution and thanks for taking the time to contact me.

All the best

Steve Clark FBPA

Head of Business Operations“

Coupon-mad

As expected, a slap on the wrist for Initial and off they disappear to carry on. We all know 'what might have been a technical breach' gets swept under the mountain-like BPA carpet and no sanctions are applied.

However, it is good to know that Steve and Gemma step in to resolves these cases, and they are fair, bearing in mind the gutter dwelling, anti-consumer industry they 'work with'.