Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

Cardriver45

patient_dream said:

BUT did Ms Roberts provide proof to your MP ???

This is what the BPA wrote to the MP

Thank you for your patience while we have conducted a review of Mr ******** complaint, case BPA-******. We are sorry that it became necessary for Mr ******** to write to you. We have created an new investigation case in order to conduct this review, BPA-*******.

Our role

It might be helpful if I begin by explaining that our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme. Please appreciate that our remit does not extend to compelling operators to cancel charges or becoming involved in the appeals process.

Positive Mystery Shop

One of our Area Managers has been asked to visit the site to conduct a full assessment and ensure that the signage in place meets the requirements of our Code of Practice. The site itself has not been called into question by Mr ********* and this is site visit has been initiated by us as part of our monitoring of compliance process.

Review


I have reviewed Mr ******** complaint and the points he has raised in email communications received on 18 July and 27 July 2021.



The complaint is in relation to two Parking Charge Notices, ********* and *********, issued for a breach of the terms and conditions of use at The University of Suffolk - North Campus permit Car Park. On both occasions, the complainant parked without a valid University of Suffolk car park permit.



To be an effective Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) compliant notice this should be issued in the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.



******** was for a contravention on 25th May 2021 where the Notice to Keeper was issued on 08th June 2021. This is 15 days from the date of the contravention.



********* was issued for a contravention on 01st June 2021 and the Notice to Keeper was issued on 09th June 2021. This is 9 days from the date of contravention.



The original Notice to Keepers that were sent to the complainant clearly outlined POFA on one Notice to Keeper and not on the other.



I am therefore content that ********* was issued correctly as a Non-POFA Notice to Keeper and ********* was issued correctly as a POFA Notice to Keeper.





Points raised by Mr ********* in email received 18 July 2021 are stated below in blue



1. "Ipserv Ltd's letter dated 13th July 2021 contains false and misleading information concerning the material dates of the alleged parking contraventions and the length of time between the alleged event and when they issued the NTK."



Mr ********* wrote to IPSERV Limited regarding the notices issued and in their reply dated 13 July 2021 IPSERV Limited referenced incorrect contravention dates. They referenced the notice processing dates in error.



I am content that the original notices were issued correctly but a human administration error was made in a subsequent communication.



IPSERV Limited have provided assurances that this was by no means an attempt to mislead the complainant. The original Notice to Keepers that were sent to the complainant clearly outlined POFA on one Notice to Keeper and not on the other.



I can also confirm that on receipt of a complaint from Mr *********IPSERV Limited contacted us at the British Parking Association before we had received Mr ********* complaint ourselves. We confirmed that as the Notice to Keepers were issued to correctly and were comfortable this was an administration error.



1. "Secondly, I also question why Ipserv Ltd. are using ANPR at some sites. They are the commercial arm of Ipswich Borough Council and the Deregulation Act 2015 banned such authorities from using ANPR to issue parking charges within car parks. So why are you providing keeper's details to a local authority company using ANPR?".



I confirmed with Mr ********* that IPSERV Limited is a private limited company and not part of Ipswich Borough Council. As such they can make use of ANPR cameras on the private land car parks. They have also been accredited by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner.





1. "As can be seen on the attachments of the financial accounts of Ipserv Ltd under section 2 Revenue recognition Parking Income it states Penalty Charge Notice. Ipserv Ltd. are registered as a private company and are therefore not allowed to issue Penalty charges."



IPSERV Limited have confirmed that this has now been amended to show Parking Charge Notice.



Points raised by Mr ********* in email received 27 July 2021 are stated below in blue



1. Mr ********* provided an excerpt from POFA on 27 July 2021 and stated "This is a requirement under the POFA 2012 to make the NTK valid and as Ipserv have not provided this wording within NTK; ********* it clearly does not meet the requirements."
Having reviewed the POFA Notice to Keeper provided I am satisfied that the wording within this letter covers the requirements of POFA. The wording has been paraphrased rather than used word for word from POFA but covers the relevant points.


1. Mr ******** also raised additional concerns regarding the ownership of IPSERV Limited and the relationship with Ipswich Borough Council.
I can confirm that IPSERV is a private company owned by Ipswich Borough Council - we are content with that position. They are not using ANPR to manage a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980) or a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority - they are using ANPR to manage private land only - this is not precluded by the BPA Code of Practice.



In summary, this is an unfortunate administration error which has resulted in incorrect dates being provided to the complainant within a letter. However, the Parking Charge Notices were issued correctly for a breach of the terms and conditions of use at the car park. On both occasions, the complainant parked within The University Car Park without being in receipt of a valid University of Suffolk car park permit. All official Notice to Keepers were sent correctly and in line with the British Parking Association's code of practice and in line with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.



I can confirm that ******** was issued correctly, outside of POFA, no further action will be required from the complainant as he has denied driving the vehicle on this date and refuses to name the driver. This Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled.



However, ******** was issued within the 14 days permitted under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and so this case remains outstanding. The case had been placed on hold whilst IPSERV Limited investigated the complaint. Due to the administration error that occurred they provided the keeper with an additional 14 days for this charge to be paid at the reduced rate of £60.00.

Having conducted this review of Mr ********* complaint I have not identified any breach to our Code of Practice.

I hope this is helpful.

Kind Regards


Sara Roberts
Head of Approved Operator Scheme
British Parking Association

Cardriver45

What I still don't understand is how the BPA can just say they are satisfied that Ipserv meet POFA because they paraphrase POFA when POFA clearly states that the NTK must 

specify the period of parking to which the notice relates

and

state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

Surely they can't just make up their own wording and then say that is enough?

As far as I can tell the NTK doesn't mention that at all?

KeithP

Cardriver45 said:

What I still don't understand is how the BPA can just say they are satisfied that Ipserv meet POFA because they paraphrase POFA when POFA clearly states that the NTK must 

specify the period of parking to which the notice relates

and

state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

Surely they can't just make up their own half-arsed wording and then say that is enough?

As far as I can tell the NTK doesn't mention that at all?

I agree entirely with those points.

I also note that the BPA and IPSERV between them admit there were at least two 'administrative errors'.

Are you surprised that your alleged 'administrative error' - of not displaying a permit - was not treated equally generously?

Cardriver45

How's this as a reply to my MP please?

Thank you for your email regarding my complaint about Ipserv Ltd.

Both Ipserv and the BPA are claiming that NTK ref, meets the POFA 2012 requirements because it paraphrases the requirements.

I draw your attention to chapter 4 paragraph 9 which states

(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

((e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(a)specify the period of parking to which the notice relates;

At no point in the POFA does it state that the notice to keeper can paraphrase these statements, however, it does state that they must state them. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is Government legislation and must be met for the Parking Company to be able to transfer liability to the keeper. 
All points and wording within the act must be met for the parking company to be able to transfer liability to the keeper. As Ipserv has not done this in NTK, they can not by law transfer liability to me as the keeper despite the spurious claims by both Ipserv and the BPA.

I have attached the relevant Notice to Keeper for your attention.

Umkomaas

I'd underline or bold the 'must' in your quote.  Any other mandatory parts do likewise. 

Coupon-mad

Please please please please ask the MP to object to the parking-firm-fed, and appallingly naive section about 'debt recovery' in the proposed new framework from the MHCLG because that was exactly what MPs said in the Bill's journey through both houses, had to go.


Send him the Consultation link that is shown here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6286801/government-consultation-re-private-parking-charge-levels-august-2021-please-bookmark-this-thread/p1



and the main two debates:


FEB 2018

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

Pete Wishart 

... This Bill will hopefully signal the beginning of the end of the parking cowboys.

Self-regulation has obviously failed dramatically. The British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the middle of Gobi desert. The parking cowboys hide behind BPA membership to give a veneer of legitimacy. Every time I take up issues with Smart Parking, it just comes back to me and says, “We’re members of the BPA so it should be all right.”

I make a plea, too, on the use of debt collection agencies, which has to end. They are grossly invasive, threatening and meant to intimidate people into paying. I have seen some appalling examples of the use of debt collection agencies and how they increase the intensity of their threats and intimidation. I have had constituents who have had 10 threatening letters, which increase to the point where I almost think they are going to be taken out and shot at dawn, such is the level of their threats.

The National Motorists Action Group has also found an unsavoury profitable collusion between private parking companies and debt collection agencies. 

It is right that PPCs should expect settlement and that they write letters, but local authorities do not use private collection agencies, so if it is good enough for the statutory sector it should be good enough for the private sector, too.

Stephen Doughty 

I am glad to hear that the Minister supports the Bill. Will he also look closely at the links between one of the so-called trade associations, the International Parking Community, and Gladstones Solicitors, and the listing of all these accredited operators? It is clear from Companies House information that there are clear links between the individual directors of Gladstones and the IPC, which goes under United Trade and Industry Ltd, and that there has been a repeated changing of names and addresses in an attempt to cover up these links.

Rishi Sunak 

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the alleged conflicts of interest within the industry. That is certainly something that the code should look to improve. On his other point, he is right that the way some operators contact members of the public is deeply worrying, as we have heard, and how they label tickets. We have also heard familiar stories of intimidating letters issued by companies that often falsely give the impression of being from a solicitor. These letters often contain threatening, legalistic language, hide appeals information in the small print and disingenuously push people towards paying unjust fines, unaware of their right to appeal.

Yvonne Fovargue 

Does the Minister agree that parking companies should not be able to raise these levels of fines if a levy is imposed on them to facilitate a new scheme?

Rishi Sunak 

The hon. Lady raises the issue of the level of fines, which is also something the code is considering. In theory, there is currently a maximum fine; the job of the new code is to make sure it is properly enforced.

NOVEMBER 2018:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-23/debates/005F9F65-57E5-4AD0-B6EC-C26C75A7AAA2/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

Pete Wishart 

(Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)

... I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the new independent appeals process that he outlines in the new clause will be free of charge. That is important, because I have seen some of these fines range to over £100—I think the top one I have seen, at the end of one of the very many threatening letters that are used by debt collection companies, was in the region of £140 to £160. 

...I am particularly delighted that the Government are looking at debt collection issues. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will state explicitly that operators cannot sell or assign debt to a third party, as that has to happen. The use of aggressive debt collection companies is probably the most grotesque, threatening and intimidating feature of parking companies’ behaviour, and the part of their operation that concerns me most. I cannot remember which hon. Member mentioned vulnerable customers who receive some of these letters, and what it must do if they receive a letter that tells them that the charge will impact on their credit rating. I think that is illegal—perhaps one of the greater legal minds here will clarify that for me—but that is the sort of thing that those letters include.

Debt collection companies increase the tempo and rate of intimidation and threat. One of my constituents received 10 letters from a range of different companies, with an increasing tone of belligerence and threat. It is right for private parking companies to expect settlement, and to deploy reasonable steps to recover it, but we cannot continue to allow threatening and aggressive letters that demand payment simply for parking a car.

Cardriver45

Here's the reply letter I received from Ipswich Borough Council. I'll wait now until I hear back from them about the contract and tender on 'what do they know' before going to the ombudsman. 

Castle

Well it's more than just putting the wrong contravention date in their reply; they have also falsely claimed that POFA is based on issuing the NTK within 14 days; that was clearly not an admin error.

(I'm assuming you will requesting the evidence they hold in order for them to state that you were the driver on both occasions).

Cardriver45

This is the reply that I received from my MP's secretary after I sent what Coupon-mad suggested;

Thank you for your last email.

As a government minister, Jo is bound by the convention of collective ministerial responsibility. This precludes her from speaking in debates other than those directly related to her appointment. However she does have easy access to colleagues in other Departments and will be able to raise this informally during the next parliamentary session.
 
I’m afraid that no-one in our office has the professional legal expertise that would allow us to comment on the legality or otherwise of the interpretation of the requirements of POFA 2012 by Ipserv and the BPA. The local Citizen’s Advice Office might be able to assist you in this or direct you to a solicitor who is experienced in this field. Several offer free initial consultations.
 
I would also recommend that you contribute to the public consultation before it closes on August 27th as it is very important that MHCLG are aware of the strength of feeling on this issue.
 

With kind regards,

Coupon-mad

I would also recommend that you contribute to the public consultation before it closes on August 27th as it is very important that MHCLG are aware of the strength of feeling on this issue.

Nice...that sounds like they get it.