Trolling/Taking down Moorside

doubledotcom

It really is simple. I have reported 2 more firms today (SABA and APCOA) over their use of civil claims threats for Penalty Notices issued under Railway Byelaw statute.

Coupon-mad

doubledotcom said:

It really is simple. I have reported 2 more firms today (SABA and APCOA) over their use of civil claims threats for Penalty Notices issued under Railway Byelaw statute.

I am so pleased you are doing this.

This is an important fightback route since the DMCC Act handed regulatory powers to the CMA.

doubledotcom

I'm also in the process of preparing one for the industry as a whole and showing the imbalance of consumer protections and the links between the ATAs, the AOS members and the ADRs.

This is there draft brief that I have prepared but I will need to expand on it for the final complaint:

Private parking enforcement in Great Britain is dominated by two DVLA-accredited trade associations: the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). Government figures analysed by motoring organisations indicate that private parking firms issued around 14.4 million tickets in the 12 months to March 2025 – in the region of 40,000 tickets every day. Of these, BPA members alone reportedly issued over 11.6 million parking charge notices in 2024.

The BPA is incorporated as “British Parking Association (The)” (company no. 00979689), a company limited by guarantee. Appeals against tickets issued by BPA members can ultimately be escalated to Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). POPLA is not operated by the BPA itself but by Trust Alliance Group Limited (company no. 04351294) under contract. Recent POPLA reports indicate that it now considers on the order of 80,000–90,000 appeals a year, and that roughly 40% of those appeals result in the parking charge being cancelled, either because the operator does not contest the appeal or because the appeal is upheld by POPLA. While this still represents only a small proportion of the millions of tickets issued, there is at least a degree of institutional separation between the trade body and the second-stage appeals service.

The IPC’s structure is markedly different. The International Parking Community and the so-called Independent Appeals Service (IAS) are both trading names of United Trade and Industry Limited (company no. 08248531). In other words, the trade association representing parking operators and the “independent” appeals body are part of the same corporate entity. Available data suggest that only a very small fraction of IPC tickets progress to the IAS and that, in the most recently reported period, around 94% of IAS appeals were rejected. The IPC does not publish comprehensive, up-to-date statistics on the volume and outcomes of appeals.

In practice, therefore, tens of millions of private parking tickets are issued each year; only a modest proportion are appealed; only a sliver reach a second-stage body; and in the IPC sector, that second-stage body is owned and controlled by the same company as the trade association. This structure creates an obvious conflict of interest and raises serious concerns about the independence, transparency and effectiveness of redress available to consumers. In my submission, this is inconsistent with the standards of fairness and genuine independence that should apply to alternative dispute resolution in a high-volume consumer market, particularly now that the CMA has enhanced powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

1505grandad

An observation  -  I see that you state:-

"The BPA is incorporated as “British Parking Association (The)” (company no. 00979689), a company limited by guarantee."

Is it relevant that TAGL is also "a company limited by guarantee.":-

". POPLA is not operated by the BPA itself but by Trust Alliance Group Limited (company no. 04351294) under contract."