Complaint to POPLA about Wright Hassall

After having my appeal rejected and looking trough various posts on this forum I'm going to be sending POPLA a complaint about Wright Hassall's conducting of my appeal.

I understand there may not be much chance of the appeal result being invalidated. If it isn't though it would mean I either get a letter from POPLA that doesn't address the issues in my complaint or I get one that says they are happy with how Wright Hassall conducted the review. I'm hoping either of those two instances means my local MP and/or the media would be willing to listen than compared to a complaint about a dodgy assessor.

Would people be willing to look over what I've written please? I do have autism which causes some communication issues. I'll also be including the original emails in my complaint but won't be posting them here as they contain personal information. I've also had to remove the links as I'm a new user. Thanks in advance.

Following the result of my POPLA appeal I am severely disappointed with the conduct of the assessor and wish to have that appeal result invalidated and to have it reassessed by another assessor.
I am asking this on the following grounds;
1) Wright Hassall is not an independent body.
2) Wright Hassall breached the rules laid out in POPLA’s original appeal response in favour of the car park operator.
3) Wright Hassall's decision making is inconsistent with previous POPLA rulings.
4) Wright Hassall erroneously applied a prior court judgement to authorise a higher payment.
5) Wright Hassall has not adequately responded to my appeal
6) Wright Hassall has done the above to other appellants to unfairly rule in favour of the car park operators.
I will provide my evidence and reasons below.
1) Wright Hassall is not an independent body;
Wright Hassall has been hired by BPA members such as ZZP Ltd to collect outstanding debts regarding PCNs.
As Wright Hassall receives financial reward from BPA members for collecting outstanding debts with regard to PCNs they have a vested interest in seeing POPLA appeals being rejected. That clear link between Wright Hassall and BPA members as well as the potential reward for rejecting appeals clearly means they are not an independent appeals body.

2) Wright Hassall breached the rules laid out in POPLA’s original appeal response in favour of the car park operator;

I have attached a copy of my original response from POPLA on 14/08/2015 when I first submitted the appeal. In it, it clearly states that;

“We have received your appeal.
This will now be sent to Millennium Door & Event Security Ltd t/as Millennium Parking Services. The operator will send their evidence to us and to you before the scheduled date of hearing. “
At no point through this process have I ever received any evidence from Millennium Door & Event Security Ltd. Wright Hassall at no point queried this with me nor did they provide me with this evidence.
Secondly, as per your website it states;
“Will the assessor collect evidence or contact witnesses on my behalf?
It is not the role of the assessor to collect evidence or contact witnesses. They will look at the evidence that is provided to them from both parties and make a decision based on this alone. You are welcome to submit photographs and witness statements if you believe they will strengthen your case.”
On 22/08/2016 I was notified by Wright Hassall that the attached email was sent to the car park operator. It contained the following;
“We are unable to make a decision on the Appeal unless further evidence is provided. We therefore request that you send us the following information so that we may assess the Appeal and make a final decision:
• Please provide all communication between parties. In particular the Appeal response for the initial Appeal. “
This request was addressed to the car park operator only. At no point was I specifically asked to provide additional evidence. Also as per the original sent to me by POPLA regarding my appeal was to be assessed on or soon after 18/09/2015. On 02/10/2015 I was notified that my appeal was adjourned until a decision was made regarding ParkingEye Ltd vs Beavis. No mention was made of further evidence being required from either party in relation to that decision. The assessor contacting ONLY the car park operator for evidence eleven months after the original decision date is clearly outside the role of the assessor.
The appeal decision was also made fourteen days after the email was sent to the car operator. Wright Hassall gave no new scheduled date. It is also unreasonable to expect fourteen days to be sufficient for the operator to supply the appellant with the new evidence, for the appellant to review the evidence, seek the relevant legal assistance and provide a response to the assessor.
3) Wright Hassall's decision making is inconsistent with previous POPLA rulings.
In the case of Legion Group/OCS Ltd vs Appelant POLA upheld the appelant's appeal as the car park operator did not provide the relevant evidence to POPLA.
Also as per post #2222 assessor Robert Harrison upheld an appeal against Birmingham Airport Ibis Layby PCN from APCOA due to a lack of evidence supplied.

As my appeal was to be assessed on or as near to 18/09/2015 the appeal should have been conducted with the evidence Wright Hassall had on 18/09/2015.
By contacting the car park operator on 22/08/2016 to seek further evidence instead of upholding the appeal due to a lack of evidence, Wright Hassall has unfairly biased their decision in favour of the car park operator.
4) Wright Hassall erroneously applied a prior court judgement to authorise a higher payment.
As part of Wright Hassall’s response they state;
• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.

The judgement for the ParkingEye Ltd vs Beavis case related to a PCN of £85. The Supreme Court did not pass judgement on a PCN of £100 therefore; it is erroneous of Wright Hassall to claim as such. The Supreme Court’s ruling was also based on the particulars of the case in question and not solely on the cost of the PCN. Wright Hassall blanket rejecting appeals for sum of £100 or less based on the cost of the PCN and not the particulars of the appeal is a distortion of the Supreme Court’s ruling that unfairly favours the car park operator.
5) Wright Hassall has not adequately responded to my appeal.
As part of my appeal, I stated the following;
“The operator has also failed the requirements of section 22.8 of the BPA Code of Conduct, specifically; “You must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it. If at first you only acknowledge the challenge, or your reply does not fully resolve it, normally we would expect you to seek the additional information you require from the motorist and accept or reject the challenge in writing not more than 35 days after the information required to resolve it has been received from the motorist.” In my initial correspondence to the operator I advised you I was a member of the Village Hotel and Gym and offered to supply any evidence they required to prove it. In the appeal rejection they stated that my not supplying them with evidence was grounds for rejection. As per the above quote they are expected to seek this additional information and only after receiving it issue a decision. This evidence was offered, the operator did not request it and made a decision without it. After receiving their response to my initial query I replied to them with all three points above. Their response was; "Dear Mr. Evans, Regrettably the decision we have made is final, should you wish to seek further review please appeal to POPLA. I have attached a POPLA form to this email for you. Your outstanding charges are - £60 (if paid by 14-08-2015) £100 (if paid by 28-08-2015) Kind regards, India Beavan Appeals Department" This once again does not comply with Section 22.8 as they have been presented with the information required and did not base their decision on that.”

I had not only included the relevant section of the BPA code of conduct I had also included the art of their email that clearly shows the car park operator did not comply with it. Wright Hassall’s response was as follows;
• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the initial Appeal response failed to comply with paragraph 22.8 of the BPA Code of Practice in that they did not ask for further evidence before making their final decision. Upon reviewing the evidence provided, it appears that the Appeal response does adhere to the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly the Appeal is rejected.

No explanations were provided as to how the car park operator gathered all the evidence within the timeframe when the “appeal” was rejected in their first response and after I offered to provide them with any evidence, they required.
As part of my appeal I also claimed that the basis upon which I was issued a PCN was a penalty. Wright Hassall’s response was that I was required to by the T&Cs my appeal was rejected. This does not even attempt to address whether the PCN was punitive or not. The reason given by Wright Hassall is a direct contradiction to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the ParkingEye Ltd vs Beavis case. In their ruling they explicitly, state only primary obligations could not be considered a penalty but secondary obligations could be.
Wright Hassall make no mention as to whether the T&Cs being applied were primary or secondary obligations nor do they justify their decision.
In all of their responses Wright Hassall makes no reference to the type of evidence the car park operator provided them or me nor references the exact evidence and documentation they are basing their decision on.
Wright Hassall’s response to my unreasonable cost defence is a copy and pasted statement also used on other appellant rejections.
Wright Hassall does not even address my GPEOL defence or the fact I have a contract with the land owner to park there which would override any contract I have with the car park operator.
Their lack of adequate responses to any of the points I have raised and the use of copy and paste responses heavily implies they did not assess my appeal on its own merits, which unfairly favours the car park operator.

6) Wright Hassall has done the above to other appellants to unfairly rule in favour of the car park operators.
Below are links to other appellant rejection letters issued by Wright Hassall. You will note that they reuse the same worded rejection statements across multiple appeals. To be issuing bulk rejections in this manner heavily implies that Wright Hassall is not assessing individual appeals on their own merit. Instead, they are looking for basic criteria within the appeals that align with pre-existing rejection statements and just mass reject appeals. If this is the case then this is blatant bias towards the car park operator as the emphasis is on finding reasons to reject appeals.
Post #2184
Post #2248
Post #2263 and #2268
This link is for another motorist who was not contacted for further evidence but the car park operator was
In summary, it is extremely clear Wright Hassall has inadequately assessed my appeal. The simple fact that every “mistake” that Wright Hassall made, going against POPLA’s own rules regarding seeking evidence, the appellant not being provided with the car park operators evidence, erroneous application of a Supreme Court rulings, has favoured the car park operator. Wright Hassall’s financial links to BPA car park operators and the rewards they can gain from rejecting appeals gives credence to the notion that their actions were deliberate.
In light of the evidence that forms this complaint against Wright Hassall I ask that POPLA invalidate Wright Hassall’s decision regarding my appeal and that a truly independent assessor reassesses my appeal.
I also ask that Wright Hassall’s suitability to assess POPLA appeals be investigated, as their financial links to BPA car operators alone would create a bias that prevents them from being considered impartial.
If POPLA does not agree to a reassessment I request a full explanation as to why POPLA feels that Wright Hassall has acted in an unbiased manner, that their financial links to BPA car park operators still allow them to act as an impartial assessor, that they did not break POPLAs own publically stated rules with the email they sent, that they ensured I was supplied evidence by the car park operator prior to making a decision as per POPLA’s publically stated rules, that my appeal was adequately responded to, that they correctly applied a ruling on a £85 PCN to a £100 PCN and that the ruling on my appeal was fair and impartial.
I look forward to your response.
Regards
Matt Evans