Do I need to follow the on-line appeals procedure of a PPC

Umkomaas

hullensien said:

@Umkomaas
First line of appeal was “Please see my detailed appeal as keeper” - they had no need to contact DVLA

Even so, in order to comply with PoFA requirements, they have to formally request registered keeper details from the DVLA, or lose the capability of holding the keeper liable. 

Coupon-mad

They did have to get DVLA data and send a NTK.

What they've done is correct (annoyingly) and has to be done regardless of appeal by the keeper.

hullensien

ok - thank all - i’ll wait for the 35 days to pass and see what happens

hullensien

Have now received “final letter before debt recovery or court action” dated 30-6-22

But no response to appeal dated June 5th other than acknowledgement of receipt of appeal

Is this just a tactic hoping we will cough up before the 35 days are up?

Umkomaas

hullensien said:

Have now received “final letter before debt recovery or court action” dated 30-6-22

But no response to appeal dated June 5th other than acknowledgement of receipt of appeal

Is this just a tactic hoping we will cough up before the 35 days are up?

They should suspend all recovery action while the case is under appeal. Check out the BPA Code of Practice for the wording of that, then make a formal complaint to the BPA via their website complaints portal. 

hullensien

@Umkomaas

I’m midway through a generic complaint about to BPA about Baysentry as we speak - the council have told them to take the signs down but they were still ticketing as of yesterday morning

hullensien

So complained to the BPA with regard to the behaviour of Baysentry 

They did not get the Listed Building Consent required to put the signs up and the council commenced legal action to have the signs removed. 

I made the BPA aware of this - Please see response below

Thank you for your email.

 

I can confirm that  Baysentry is a member of our Approved Operator Scheme which means that they are required to adhere to our Code of Practice.

 

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.

 

Planning consent and listed building status are not covered by the Code.

 

As the situation you have described falls outside of the scope of what is covered by the Code, I am unable to advise further on this occasion.

 

I hope this information is helpful.

 

Kind regards

Anne Bevis

AOS Investigations Team

 They obviously don’t care that Baysentry have broken the law and are operating illegally

Any ideas for the next step?

Castle

I'd beg to differ with the BPA because:-

4.3 Under the Code you must keep to all the requirements laid down by law. The Code reflects our understanding of the law at the date of publication. However, you are responsible for familiarising yourself with the law on any activities covered by the Code

Umkomaas

However, you are responsible for familiarising yourself with the law on any activities covered by the Code

I think that must apply to BPA staff as well, especially the author of the BPA response, who seems to still have a One Parking Solution/PPC view clouding her thinking carrying forward into her new employment!

hullensien

@Castle
@Umkomaas
Thanks for that guys
I went back with more evidence and quoted 4.3 above
I also suggested Ms Bevis familiarise herself with her own Code of Practice before “glibly dismissing a valid complaint against a BPA member” and requested the complaint be escalated
Now in the hands of a Customer Services Manager who advises the complaint is now logged and the matter is being investigated further with Baysentry
thanks again