In order to maximise the awareness of POPLA among the judiciary and to seek to make the findings of POPLA persuasive if an operator has to proceed to Court to pursue any unpaid parking charges, we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice, the Justices’ Clerks Society, the Association of District Judges and Master of the Rolls' Policy Team with some success. The intention is to make it easier to prosecute people who have not paid their parking charge notices especially where they have gone to POPLA and the appellant has lost their case but still doesn't pay.
We have also put together some wording for operators which may help them when taking a case regarding non-payment to court under the Protection of Freedoms Act. These include instances where;
the independent adjudicator has found in favour of the operator and rejected the motorist's appeal
the motorist has been offered the independent appeals service but has not made use of it.
Normally The Prankster would take offence at an action like this, considering it a blatant attempt to influence the courts into pre-judging a case. However, as the note states the BPA 'seek to make the finding of POPLA persuasive', The Prankster considers this is probably a good thing after all. No doubt the BPA has been touring the country warning courts of the findings of POPLA regarding its biggest rogue operator, ParkingEye. ParkingEye have never won at POPLA when its costs have been called into question, as this post shows. If the BPA have been diligently informing the courts that POPLA find time after time that ParkingEye's charges are not justified, despite the many and varied excuses they use to try and justify them, then they will be doing the motorist a great service.
ParkingEye file hundreds of court cases each week - sometimes even a thousand or more. The BPA will presumably also warn the courts that the POPLA website deliberately tries to keep the motorist in the dark by not informing them they can query the charge as not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The courts can therefore expect a huge influx of cases from ParkingEye, all of which would have been dismissed by POPLA, if only the motorist had appealed.
Of course, it would be churlish to suggest that the BPA are trying to save money by not encouraging POPLA appeals, for which they have to pay around £100. Making the taxpayer pay by diverting them to court is surely the last thing on their mind. In any case, the courts have a simple remedy. They can direct the case back to POPLA, which will save the taxpayer money and ensure a quick and simple result to the case.
The Parking Prankster