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

Umkomaas

Nice further movement. Good fight back. 

hullensien

I filed a further complaint with the BPA

On the particular car park in question there is a “get out of jail free” card with regards to them not having Listed Building consent for the signage.

However it looks like Baysentry have opted for a new tactic.
There have been three instances that i am aware of in the last couple of monthss whereby an appeal has been made and they have failed to respond other than automated response.
They have continued the process ie NTK, Final letter, involve DCBL etc.
By failing to respond by rejection, they are depriving the PCN recipients the chance to go to POPLA as no code is getting issued. 
I included that as part of a complaint to the BPA and the response i got was “have you asked them for a copy of the appeal”?

I sent SAR to BaySentry, but their response did not include the emailed appeal, nor the email response advising that they had received my communication - that has my name on it. Additionally they did not include any communication to DCBL either.
I went and told them i wanted copies of emails and copies of communications to DCBL.
I received another PCN a year ago - got as far a NTK and nothing further happened - they also failed to include any of those details ie NTK, pictures taken at the time etcc

I have also made a general complaint to POPLA with regard to Baysentry failing to respond therefore failing to issue POPLA codes.

Any suggestions for the next step or do i just sit it out until LBC?

thanks

hullensien

Just had a reply from POPLA

Thank you for your contact.

I fully understand your frustration in regard to the issues that you have highlighted in your email.

It should be noted that POPLA can only become involved if the operator has rejected an appeal and issued a 10-digit verification code. You must then contact our service within 28 days of the code being issued. Once you have received a verification code please visit www.popla.co.uk to raise the appeal online.

If you attempt to raise the appeal after the 28-day expiry date of the code the issue will be outside of our remit, and we will not be able to assess the charge. If this happens you may wish to seek independent advice.

POPLA does not have any jurisdiction over private parking operator’s, we are an independent appeals service.

Kind regards,

So effectively if a PPC wants to avoid a POPLA appeal all they need to do is ignore the PCN appeal as the BPA don’t seem interested either

Maybe something should be added the the new CoP along the lines that if an appeal is not rejected it is deemed as upheld and the PCN is cancelled - that would at least force the operator to respond. At least with a rejection there is still a chance at POPLA - no rejection = no chance. It’s a loophole that needs closing.

@Coupon-mad - what are your thoughts on this?

thanks

Coupon-mad

Maybe something should be added the the new CoP along the lines that if an appeal is not rejected it is deemed as upheld and the PCN is cancelled - that would at least force the operator to respond. At least with a rejection there is still a chance at POPLA - no rejection = no chance. It’s a loophole that needs closing.

@Coupon-mad - what are your thoughts on this?

None of the Code if Practice (apart from the Appeals Charter for certain limited scenarios) covers how the new appeals system will actually work.

DLUHC were/are undertaking 'appeals discovery' this year - to which I had input but so did the APAs - and much will be down to whoever runs it. 

Appeals detail will come later, once the DLUHC decide who will run that. Don't be surprised if POPLA and the IAS pitch for it, if the opportunity for open tendering arises (which I understand the Govt does not have to do).

Anyway, re appeals, we can't influence that now and will be stuck with what we get (even if, say, POPLA run it - which I don't think they should but I am being a realist and it has to be fairly cheap and 'ready to go') but with better parameters and a fairer approach that considers mitigation - and the Equality Act, I hope - properly.

AIUI the upcoming Public Consultation is ONLY likely to be about the level of parking charge, perhaps exploring deterrent models, perhaps asking about the discount again, and certainly about the plan to ban the extortion of the added £70 gaslighting pseudo-early-bailiff fee that undoubtedly funds the court rush.

Possibly also a question about London levels I hope, partly because 'London' has never been defined and because I DISAGREE with the whole concept of the hybrid/London complicated rubbish (that no-one asked for).

It's too complicated for consumers AND for the parking industry and opens the door for the PPCs to squeal at every review, for higher levels in other cities and other exceptional locations. A slippery slope to a complete mess of confusing levels.

Certainly IMHO, the idea of £130 as a London higher level needs binning, because that is extortionate, being over a third higher than the current APA caps. And before we know it that would be extended to a city near you so that £130 would become the rule rather than the exception.

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Possibly also a question about London levels I hope, partly because 'London' has never been defined and because I DISAGREE with the whole concept of the hybrid/London complicated rubbish (that no-one asked for).

It's too complicated for consumers AND for the parking industry and opens the door for the PPCs to squeal at every review, for higher levels in other cities and other exceptional locations. A slippery slope to a complete mess of confusing levels.

Certainly IMHO, the idea of £130 as a London higher level needs binning, because that is extortionate, being over a third higher than the current APA caps. And before we know it that would be extended to a city near you so that £130 would become the rule rather than the exception.

At the risk of going off topic-London actually currently has two different penalty bands-£130-Higher (£80-Lower) and £110-Higher (£60-Lower):-
Parking Band Map | London Councils

Coupon-mad

Yep, but not in the private parking Code which is in danger of inflicting £130 on poorer boroughs for simple things like not inputting your VRM at your gym or a restaurant/hotel venue.  That's not stated to be a 'keying error' and this sort of breach is listed as 'higher' level, which is plain STUPID. £130 for the keypad being hidden, madness.

IMHO it was a misguided and atrociously naive idea to invent hybrid £100 residential/staff permit area complications (open to major abuse by PPCs by creating 'permit areas' everywhere).

I absolutely refute the idea of any evidence of need for geographical differences - that could be reviewed two years after the regulation begins - and think the Code parking charge levels should be far simpler from the outset (a standard 2 levels in E&W and not over £100 under any circs).

£130 or £110 is too much. Both exceed the current caps and would also require new signage. Best to avoid new signs and thus the DLUHC could keep to the planned 31/12/2023 implementation plan. 

If a landowner really wants to do so, they could always create a higher tariff (a fee, that THEY keep and which attracts VAT) for things like overstaying by a significant time (maybe staying 2 hours or more over allowed time?), or dumping your car at a retail park for a week to go on holiday.

That would stop bilkers and would be allowable under the tariff rules as long as the advertised fee for 'long stay' was prominent, easy to understand and pay and not so high as to be unconscionable.

hullensien

@Coupon-mad
Does Steve Clarke still work for the BPA as an employee or as a consultant
My complaint to the BPA appears to be hitting a brick wall called Gemma Dorans so i want to escalate

Umkomaas

Write to Sara Roberts. 

Coupon-mad

hullensien said:

@Coupon-mad
Does Steve Clarke still work for the BPA as an employee or as a consultant
My complaint to the BPA appears to be hitting a brick wall called Gemma Dorans so i want to escalate

He retired this month.

Sara Roberts is Head of AOS:

sara.r@britishparking.co.uk

Fruitcake

Just a comment about advertising consent and listed building consent for signs. My interpretation of the PoFA schedule 4 is that requirements and permissions of signs are covered by paragraph 12. Not having the required consent is therefore a breach of para 12 of the PoFA.
Perhaps the BPA should be required to read the PoFA and ensure PPCs in general, and Baysentry in particular abide by this Act of Parliament.