Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

Cardriver45

Ipserv have replied and are saying that the other NTK does meet the POFA requirements and the reason they aren't going to provide a POPLA code is that the appeal was outside of the 28 day deadline.

Here is pics of the other NTK that unfortunately does fall in the 14-day deadline. Though they have failed to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge as prescribed by Schedule 4 2012 paragraph 9 (2) (e) of The Protection Of Freedoms Act. 

And failed to state the period of parking (though by looking at others threads it looks like this one doesn't usually get excepted by POPLA?)

Could someone let me know if they can spot any other POFA fails on it please?

https://imgur.com/a/QlG0awk

Coupon-mad

Dunno because I couldn't see the back.

 they have failed to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge as prescribed by Schedule 4 2012 paragraph 9 (2) (e) of The Protection Of Freedoms Act. 
And failed to state the period of parking (though by looking at others threads it looks like this one doesn't usually get excepted by POPLA?)

The first omission is pretty powerful thiought.

Redx

As above , if it fails on wording the timescales are irrelevant , one failure is all it takes , doesn't matter which one it is , multiple failures are even better though

Cardriver45

Coupon-mad said:

Dunno because I couldn't see the back.

 they have failed to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge as prescribed by Schedule 4 2012 paragraph 9 (2) (e) of The Protection Of Freedoms Act. 
And failed to state the period of parking (though by looking at others threads it looks like this one doesn't usually get excepted by POPLA?)

The first omission is pretty powerful thiought.

Here is the rear

Cardriver45

This was the reply I received from the BPA. They say that the NTK meets POFA and are also saying that Ipserv are a private limited company and not part of the borough council so they are allowed to use ANPR.

Thank you for contacting us, I am sorry for the delay in responding, I have been on annual leave.

I am sorry also to hear you have had cause to raise a formal complaint reagrding one of our members Ipserv Limited.

Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme where evidence can be supplied. We are unable to become involved in individual ticket disputes, hear appeals or compel a member to cancel a parking charge notice..

I have approached Ipserv Limited and asked them to comment and investigate your complaint. 

Following a review of the information and evidence provided by both parites, along side our code of practice, I have added my comments in green to your complaint below.

Ipserv Limited have confirmed that as ******** was issued outside of POFA no further action will be required.  This Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled as you have advised them that you were not the driver and have not named the driver of the vehicle for the date of the event.

As ******** was issued within the 14 days permitted under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Ipserv Limited have confirmed that this charge remains outstanding on their system. They have confirmed that due to the administration error that occurred they will provide an additional 14 days for this charge to be paid at the reduced rate of £60.00. 

I understand that Ipserv limited have also written to you directly following receipt of a letter sent to them on the 20th of July 2021.  .

 As the operator has responded accordingly, this case is now closed. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and assisting us to raise standards within the private parking sector.

I hope this is helpful.

Sara Roberts

Head of Approved Operator Scheme

British Parking Association

******** was issued within the 14 days outlined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA) and quoted the POFA legislation.

******** was issued as a “NON POFA” Notice to Keeper as this letter was issued outside of 14 days. This letter makes no reference of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.

Ipserv have confirmed that an administration error was made in the communication sent to you on the 13th July 2021.  They have confirmed the dates used on this letter were taken from the date the Parking Charge Notices were processed on their system rather than the dates of the contravention. Ipserv have assured me that this was by no means an attempt to mislead and that original Notice to Keepers that were sent to the complainant which clearly outlined POFA on one Notice to Keeper and not on the other.

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.

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. (see attachment 7 & 8).

 

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

fisherjim

A "private company" that has a pension scheme run by Suffolk County Council and is shown in its accounts to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Ipswich Borough Council I smell fish!

Redx

Sounds similar to the almo councils do to distance themselves from housing , then the almo contracts a private parking company to monitor parking and issue tickets , the almo usually rejects all appeals !!

Or Grenfell tower block , nothing to do with us guv says the council before everyone resigns ! That one was a similar acronym to almo , as in arms length !!

Shouldn't be allowed

POFA should be mandatory , standard timescales and wording , or bin it , not 6 months !!

No keeper should be harassed unless POFA is fully complied with

Timeouts

fisherjim said:

A "private company" that has a pension scheme run by Suffolk County Council and is shown in its accounts to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Ipswich Borough Council I smell fish!

Is this not just another case of the BPA ... KNOWING NOTHING ?

Driving up standards they keep saying ?   anyone know WHERE ?

Cardriver45

This is a reply I've drafted to send to the BPA. Could someone take a look please and let me know of any changes they feel I should make?

Dear Sara,

Thank you for your reply to my email regarding my complaint against Ipserv Ltd.

Ipserv claim that NTK ref; meets the requirements of the POFA 2012.

I draw your attention to Chapter 4 Paragraph 9 (e) which clearly states that the NTK must 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;

As can be clearly seen on the NTK sent by Ipserv attached that the above statement has not been included and there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the parking charges.

This is a legal requirement under the POFA 2012 act to make the NTK valid and as Ipserv have not provided this wording within NTK; it clearly does not meet the requirements.

This is yet again misleading information provided by Ipserv Ltd. that misleads the keeper (myself) into believing that the NTK meets the requirements of POFA 2012 when it clearly does not.

Your comments to my email complaint;

“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.”

For your claim that Ipserv are not part of Ipswich Borough Council I draw your attention to the fact that Ipserv are run by prominent members of the borough council including Russel Williams their chief executive, James Fairclough; Head of Culture & Environment and Christine Spittlehouse; Human Resources Operations Manager plus Ipswich Borough Council has over 75% of shares, over 75% of ownership and voting rights and the right to appoint and remove directors. (Companies House)
Ipserv is shown in its accounts to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Ipswich Borough Council.

I will also be forwarding this email onto my local MP,

Timeouts

And to ROBERT JENRICK MP