ParkingEye request a meeting with Nick Lester of POPLA to discuss how to get round the problem that operators always lose at POPLA if asked to show they have a contract with the landowner.
The meeting is arranged for 9th April.
Nick Lester met with Parking Eye and the BPA Ltd on 9th April and then a draft witness statement was sent to Nick Lester. Although the witness statement comes from the BPA ltd, a large amount of the email is redacted. The 'first draft' attachment is mysteriously missing from the attachments released by the FoI request. Did it come from ParkingEye originally? Why were large sections at the end of the email redacted?
Nick edits the document and 12 minutes later sends it on. He is worried it might cause problems for ParkingEye.
The witness statement was then sent out along with the POPLA May newsletter. This email is mysteriously missing from the FoI request.
...but this email referring to it is not.
This email referring to it is also present.
The witness statements sent with the newsletter, not released under FoI, now have an 'Authors' field of alex.cooke. They were last saved by the Lead Adjudicator, Henry Michael Greenslade.
Did Nick Lester forget to remove the author field from the copy he sent to Mr Greenslade? Is Alex Cooke a ParkingEye employee? Why were 'inconvenient' emails and attachments missed out from those released under the FoI request?
The Parking Prankster