POPLA refuse to add 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' to appeal reasons. Richard Reeve, Nick Lester and John O'Brian ignore complaint

The Parking Prankster has complained to the highest level of London Councils that POPLA will not put 'the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' as a reason to appeal on the POPLA web site.

Unfortunately all he got was a bureaucratic washing of hands and meaningless platitudes from Richard Reeve, Tribunal Manger, Nick Lester, Corporate Director, Services and John O'Brien, Chief Executive.

The Prankster questions whether Nick Lester, and John O'Brien are fit to remain in their jobs as public servants when they are clearly not serving the public interest and doing their best to keep the public unaware that the majority of private parking charges are too high. Nick Lester has recently received a lifetime award for services to the Parking Industry. It is clear there is a conflict of interest here.

The Prankster reprints the complaint chain. Unfortunately The Prankster, being slightly naive at the time, was guilty of badly wording his initial complaint and so Richard Reeve's reply is mostly acceptable, except that not all points were addressed. Richard Reeve used the standard bureaucratic tactic of answering some points and failing to answer the more difficult points, and therefore he cannot escape complete censure.

Nick Lester totally ignored the complaint, answered a different question and was patronising and dismissive. The Prankster questions whether he should have even been involved in the complaint chain as there is clearly a conflict of interests.

John O'Brien behaved similarly, ignoring the complaint and producing an entirely patronising reply. if these public servants will not guard the public interest, then who will?

The escalating nature of the complaints procedure is intended to produce real answers, not let bureaucrats hide behind a web of fudge and guff.

Complaint Level 1

The most common reason reported on internet forums for upholding appeals is failure by the parking company to abide by the British Parking Association Limited code of practice.

It cannot be right that this reason is not mentioned on the POPLA web site. This should be one of the main appeal reasons, with examples such as failure to provide a contract, incorrect signage or charge not being a true pre-estimate of loss.

Failure to document this leaves POPLA open to charges of not being independent.  It cannot be right that many motorists read the POPLA web site and think they have no grounds for appeal. Only internet-savvy motorists who search the parking forums for advice can currently find these reasons.

It does not help when the Lead Adjudicator makes comments like this in his annual report:

“The appeal form notes and the website suggests situations which might fall within
particular grounds but we, and the Department for Transport, were aware thattoo many suggestions as to what is not within a particular ground, may have theunintended consequence of perhaps putting off a motorist with a genuine case.”

It does not help when the Lead Adjudicator does not mention these reasons in his annual report.

Hiding the reasons for a successful appeal is not the behaviour expected of the Lead Adjudicator or POPLA in general. This is a clear bias in favour of the parking companies.

Please ensure that the POPLA website and other POPLA documents are updated to specify that all reasons for appeal are considered, and that the specific reason of ‘Failure to meet the BPA code of practice’ is added.

Satisfactory resolution

I would consider a satisfactory resolution to this complaint to contain the following elements

a) A requirement for POPLA to update the website to add the appeal reason ‘Failure to meet the BPA code of practice’
b) A requirement to regularly update the website to add new successful appeal reasons if they become common
c) A requirement for POPLA to be more transparent regarding successful reasons for appeal, and to produce statistics

Richard Reeve's reply

In response to each resolution sought, I would advise as follows:
a) It would appear that Mr Prankster has completely misunderstood the position. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice is not, in itself, a ground of appeal.
b) As POPLA is an independent body, it would not be appropriate for it to advertise successful appeal reasons.
c) This is, in part, a duplicate of the request made in b). However, there is no statutory requirement for POPLA to maintain a register.

Complaint level 2

a) I am merely seeking to find a suitable category title to hold the common appeal reasons, ‘failure to prove landowner consent’ and ‘failure to prove pre-estimate of loss’. Any more suitable title would be acceptable.

b) I disagree with this. An independent body would indicate successful appeal reasons. PATAS does this, for instance, maintaining a register of all appeals. Not advertising valid appeal reasons clearly shows that POPLA is under the influence of the parking companies who for obvious reasons do not want motorists to know the best reasons for appeal. POPLA clearly shows institutional bias by addressing these points in private conversations with parking organisations but not making these public to motorists.

c) The parking organisations have these statistics. By not making these available to motorists, this is clear indication of institutional bias.

These comments were also not addressed in the answer given:

When considering this complaint, please also take into account that the Lead Adjudicator in his POPLA May Newsletter specifically addressed the issues of landowner contracts and pre-estimate of loss, coaching the parking companies and providing sample witness statements. If these particular issues are important enough to raise with the parking companies then they are also important enough to inform the motorist that these are reasons to appeal. Please also take into account that although these issues were raised in the May Newsletter to parking companies they were not addressed in the annual report and investigate whether any pressure was put on POPLA by the parking industry not to raise these reasons. Please investigate how the decision making process of what to include and what not to include in the annual report was made.

Nick Lester's reply

Common Reasons for upholding appeals

No appeal is allowed on the basis that the operator has failed to abide by the BPA Code of Practice. Assessors will consider appeals on the basis of the law and are informed by the Code of Practice. To the extent that the internet forums say that the most common reason for allowing appeal is because of a failure to comply with the Code of Practice they are misleading their readers.

Common reasons for allowing appeals are discussed in the annual report and this is the appropriate place for that.

Complaint Level 3

I would first take issue with the fact that Nick Lester addressed my complaints at the second stage. Nick Lester also has a role with the British Parking Association and therefore clearly cannot be an impartial reviewer. Indeed, in BPA meetings where POPLA is discussed, Nick Lester regularly recuses himself in case there is a conflict of interest.

His bias show through in the responses to my complaint, and in the cursory and dismissive manner in which my complaint has been handled.

---

I admit in my ignorance to originally phrasing this complaint exceedingly badly and it was therefore misleading. I apologise for any time wasted as a result of this.

However ,Nick Lester has totally ignored my response to the complaint in an extremely patronizing and dismissive way. I repeat my response as follows.

a)      I am merely seeking to find a suitable category title to hold the common appeal reasons, ‘failure to prove landownder consent’ and ‘failure to prove pre-estimate of loss’. Any more suitable title would be acceptable.

b)      I disagree with this. An independent body would indicate successful appeal reasons. PATAS does this, for instance, maintaining a register of all appeals. Not advertising valid appeal reasons clearly shows that POPLA is under the influence of the parking companies who for obvious reasons do not want motorists to know the best reasons for appeal. POPLA clearly shows institutional bias by addressing these points in private conversations with parking organisations but not making these public to motorists.

c)       The parking organisations have these statistics. By not making these available to motorists, this is clear indication of institutional bias.

These comments were also not addressed in the answer given:

When considering this complaint, please also take into account that the Lead Adjudicator in his POPLA May Newsletter specifically addressed the issues of landowner contracts and pre-estimate of loss, coaching the parking companies and providing sample witness statements. If these particular issues are important enough to raise with the parking companies then they are also important enough to inform the motorist that these are reasons to appeal. Please also take into account that although these issues were raised in the May Newsletter to parking companies they were not addressed in the annual report and investigate whether any

pressure was put on POPLA by the parking industry not to raise these reasons. Please investigate how the decision making process of what to include and what not to include in the annual report was made.

Nick Lester’s answer addresses none of these points.

I would like to therefore reword it. If as a result of this you think that I should raise a new complaint and start from the beginning I will take your advice and do that. As you can see from my revised wording, both reasons (a) and (b) are in fact breaches of the BPA code of practice which is where my mistake lay.

My new phrasing is:

The most common reasons reported on internet forums for upholding appeals are:

1. a)      The charge is for breach of contract and the amount is not a true pre-estimate of loss
2. b)      The parking company does not own the land and has not provided evidence that it has written authority from the landowner to manage parking and pursue charges to court

I include a document which includes all the public POPLA decisions I could find which bears this out.

It is a fact that every appeal against certain operators, for instance ParkingEye, bringing these appeal points up, results in the appeal being upheld for the motorist. However, these reasons are not documented on the POPLA web site, which results in many motorists not including these as appeal points. It cannot be right that the main reasons for appeals being upheld are not mentioned on the POPLA web site.

The recent documents released as a freedom of information request showed that the British Parking Association heavily resisted requests by the DVLA to change the POPLA.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reasons_to_appeal_to_popla

Anthony Boucher, Deputy Director, Transport Division, DfT to Norman Baker MP, pointing out BPA Ltd's prevarication.

Motorists are not being given clear guidance about the grounds on which they can appeal if they receive a parking ticket when they park on private land. Officials have had some success in pushing the British Parking Association (BPA) to make the necessary changes, but the BPA are prevaricating on some aspects, and a letter from you may be needed.

DfT on BPA admitting the reasons on the website are limited to prevent appeals

…they are unwilling to make changes to the website so that motorists know that they can appeal if they believe the charge was excessive or disproportionate. Their reasoning is that motorists might see any charge as excessive and as a result the appeals service would be flooded with appeals

DfT official to Anthony Boucher regarding BPA Ltd failure to co-operate

This question is linked to the consideration of what action we advise Ministers to take if BPA/POPLA continue to prevaricate or refuse outright to make the changes we require. On the latter is there a view on options, particularly on whether we should go so far as to recommend to Ministers that they could consider a general suspension on ATA member access to DVLA data if the changes aren't made? I don't think advice on this needs to go in this submission but we need to consider the options and what is possible if BPA choose not to co-operate

Nick Lester is clearly continuing this trend in obstructing changes to the website to inform motorists of their right to appeal, and his dual role with the BPA has to called into question if the process is to be fair to motorists.

If the BPA prevent changes to the website purely because this would enable many more motorist to win appeals, then POPLA’sindependence has to be called into question.

It does not help when the Lead Adjudicator makes comments like this in his annual report:

“The appeal form notes and the website suggests situations which might fall within

particular grounds but we, and the Department for Transport, were aware that

too many suggestions as to what is not within a particular ground, may have the

unintended consequence of perhaps putting off a motorist with a genuine case.”

It does not help when the Lead Adjudicator does not mention these reasons in his annual report.

Hiding the reasons for a successful appeal is not the behaviour expected of the Lead Adjudicator or POPLA in general. This is a clear bias in favour of the parking companies.

Please ensure that the POPLA website and other POPLA documents are updated to specify that all reasons for appeal are considered, and that the specific reasons below are added:

a)      The charge is for breach of contract and the amount is not a true pre-estimate of loss

b)      The parking company does not own the land and has not provided evidence that it has written authority from the landowner to manage parking and pursue charges to court

Satisfactory resolution

I would consider a satisfactory resolution to this complaint to contain the following elements

1. a)      A requirement for POPLA to update the website to add the appeal reasons above
2. b)      A requirement to regularly review the website to add new successful appeal reasons if they become common
3. c)       A requirement for POPLA to be more transparent regarding successful reasons for appeal, and to produce statistics in the same way that PATAS does

John O' Brian's reply

The Lead Adjudicator and assessors determine appeals on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis; they are independent of both parties and impartial. Their function is to decide appeals on the basis of evidence and submissions lodged by each party. POPLA provides administrative support for them.

The purpose of the POPLA website is to provide information to the parties to an appeal in order to clarify and facilitate the appeals process. Whilst it may be appropriate for the Lead Adjudicator to report on issues regularly raised in appeals in an annual report - with a view to clarifying points, and thereby possibly reducing the number of appeals - it is not the function or role of POPLA to advise either party to an appeal. For them to do so, either in general terms or in a specific case, would be improper, and contrary to the requirement that the service be impartial.

This part of your complaint was considered by Mr Reeve in his stage one response, with reference to POPLA's impartiality, and by Mr Lester in his stage two response, which explained that common appeal points may be addressed in the annual report and I do not believe this aspect of the complaint merits further enquiry.

---
Further Reading

Martin Cutts, independent member of the DVLA Consumer forum, received similar short shrift when he attempted to right the situation. Follow this link for the email chain.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster