Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

Castle

Cardriver45 said:

Umkomaas said:

The main movers and shakers, the Ipserv directors are senior Ipswich Borough Council employees. A very tangled web. 

Yes, Ipswich Borough Council runs them apparently but they are a private company. They even have the same office address as the council.

They are 100% owned by the Borough Council who have underwritten their losses of £804K to 31st March 2020; suspect it will be more than a £Million by now.

KeithP

Umkomaas said:

The main movers and shakers, the Ipserv directors are senior Ipswich Borough Council employees. A very tangled web. 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417113/officers

https://www.ipswich.gov.uk/sites/default/files/structure_chart_april_2019.pdf

Check them out!

Yes indeed.

Those 'senior Ipswich Borough Council employees' include the Chief Executive of Ipswich Borough Council.

But none of that is too surprising when we see these words on the IPSERV website...

Ipserv is the commercial arm of Ipswich Borough Council.

So, do we have Ipswich Borough Council running private car parks?

Cardriver45

KeithP said:

Yes indeed.

Those 'senior Ipswich Borough Council employees' include the Chief Executive of Ipswich Borough Council.

"We operate with a passion for providing customers with high quality, ethical business services tailored to your needs"

They are having a laugh. Though typical rhetoric from a government organisation

Umkomaas

Cardriver45 said:

KeithP said:

Yes indeed.

Those 'senior Ipswich Borough Council employees' include the Chief Executive of Ipswich Borough Council.

"We operate with a passion for providing customers with high quality, ethical business services tailored to your needs"

They are having a laugh. Though typical rhetoric from a government organisation

No doubt the output of a dozen working party meetings agonising over words and meanings, after carrying out as many focus group sessions. Tax payer value - writ large!

KeithP

Here is another quote from the IPSERV 'car park enforcement' webpage...

So not only is Ipswich Borough Council using ANPR, they are actually stating how wonderful it is.

Cardriver45

KeithP said:

Here is another quote 

So not only is Ipswich Borough Council using ANPR, they are actually stating how wonderful it is.

Shame (not) they incorrectly state their usage in their car parks, and don't use them to follow the POFA requirements in their NTKs 

KeithP

Cardriver45 said:

KeithP said:

Here is another quote 

So not only is Ipswich Borough Council using ANPR, they are actually stating how wonderful it is.

Shame (not) they incorrectly state their usage in their car parks, and don't use them to follow the POFA requirements in their NTKs 

But the point I was making is that local authorities are banned from using ANPR because it is inherently unreliable.

Cardriver45

KeithP said:

But the point I was making is that local authorities are banned from using ANPR because it is inherently unreliable.

Really?
I guess that get around that one by operating as a private company. Sneaky

Cardriver45

Here is the draft email I have written for the DVLA.

Would someone check it before I send it, please?

I am contacting you regarding false information provided in a letter response by Ipserv Limited to an appeal by the keeper to a Notice to Keeper and misleading, in writing, the keeper of the vehicle concerned, about keeper liability.

I sent Ipserv an appeal letter as the NTK was received outside of the 14 day limit stipulated by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Paragraph 9 (4) & (5). 

They replied with false information concerning the material dates of the alleged parking contravention and the length of time for the keeper to receive the NTK, misleading the keeper that the NTK should have been received within the 14 day limit set by the POFA 2012 and that it meets the POFA requirements. 

I have attached the original NTK with the dates, the rear of the NTK with the ANPR photo which clearly shows the date stamp and the reply from Ipserv Ltd to my (the keeper) appeal with the incorrect material dates and times.

I have also included the 2nd NTK because although the expected date for the keeper to receive the notice did fall within the 14 day limit, the material dates of the alleged event still do not correspond with the dates on the reply letter from Ipserv Ltd.

This is either a deliberate attempt at misleading the keeper or a case of gross incompetence by Ipserv Limited. Either way, it misleads the keeper into believing that the NTK meets the criteria stipulated by POFA, when clearly it does not.

There are also 4 failures to meet the POFA requirements in NTK 1 and 2 in NTK 2

The DVLA would previously ban firms outright for misleading keepers about POFA applying when it didn’t.

Do you still use those powers or are you happy to let ten million PCNs be issued in the last pre-COVID year and over 5 million during the last COVID year and not properly regulate the private parking firms that request drivers' details from yourselves?

Do not respond with a template paragraph about how you think you ‘safeguard’ keeper data because that regurgitated DVLA response is insulting to consumers.

I expect you to investigate this properly. or I shall be contacting my local Member of Parliament and refer the issue to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. 

I await your response

ihatetrump

A Local Authority is a PUBLIC body - effectively owned (and accountable to) the residents of that Local Area. (the PUBLIC)  They CANNOT choose to be private when it suits them.

Trying to run a car park on a private basis is as fake as the PCN's that get issued. - but they may have tripped up here:

You might want to look at the Financial Accounts of Ipserve Limited, filed at Companies House and the notes to the accounts:



I believe Private Companies cannot issue Penalty Charge Notices  (only Parking Charge Notices) - I think the legal wizards on the forum will correct me if I'm wrong.

So on their NTK, they call it a Parking Charge Notice and in their accounts they call it a Penalty Charge Notice - go figure! - they clearly haven't got a clue!