Wednesday, 11 March 2015

POPLA adjourn cases on ParkingEye's request

POPLA have been telling motorists that their cases have been adjourned because ParkingEye requested this.

In principle, The Prankster has no issue with cases being adjourned, but thinks POPLA should publish some ground rules.

a) What kind of cases should appeals be delayed for (Court of appeal and above?)
b) When should the delay start? (When the hearing is held or before?)
c) Who should be able to request delays? Parking companies? Motorists? Motoring organisations? POPLA themselves? The BPA?
d) In cases where a criminal prosecution is ongoing, as with Civil Enforcement, should all their cases be stayed until the prosecution is complete?
e) Does it have to be a parking case, or can cases be held up if there is a point of law at issue which is parking related?

The Prankster looks forward to some answers.

Going forward, it looks like this type of thing will be happening 2-3 times a year.

However, The Prankster does have a serious concern that ParkingEye have not bothered to submit any evidence packs within the 28 day limit. it seems they want to have their cake and eat it. If they lose the appeal, they will not bother submitting evidence packs. If they win then they want the right to submit late packs. The Prankster consider this an abuse of process and that ParkingEye should have to abide by the same deadlines as everyone else.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Surely if they have not submitted evidence within the stipulated time frame it should be automatically be a win for the driver? If you don't submit a defence in a small claim its an automatic loss. If Parking Eye goes ahead with the popla process, popla should be providing proof that their evidence was provided within the time frame above. Otherwise the whole thing is basically a sham.

  2. by failing to provide an alternate dispute resolution , the BPA should chuck them out , and they should be banned from DVLA access.

  3. "POPLA adjourn cases on ParkingEye's request" , so this statement indicates that PE have stopped using POPLA , ie: we don't want you to do any more POPLA work for us.

    PE should now be removed from the BPA as they are failing to meet there criteria of providing a alternate dispute system .

    NOW , not next week NOW.

  4. PE seem to forget that the Beavis result is a very narrow victory if they win. It cannot be taken as a precedent for those cases where they don't pay the landowner a fee for operating on the car parks.
    Commercial justification cannot be applied to any situation where the loss to them is nil.

    1. You are of course right but PE do not aim to battle knowledgeable lay reps. They aim to bully the unprepared and, if they win, will cherry pick the bits they like and simply play the numbers game. Like when they picked a single obiter point from the Somerfield case. It's what they do. The best the wider campaign community can do is to continue spreading the word and lower the number of unwilling victims.

    2. You have no idea how narrow the victory will be until the judgment is made public. The ratio of any decision in PE's favour could limit it to cases where they pay to operate, or it could do nothing of the sort and apply at all car parks PE operate on.

      Until you have sight of the judges reasoning behind any decision it is impossible to say.

    3. Agreed, we need to see the judgment (either way) so we can see what it does and does not apply to. Their lordships may wish to make a wide decision, or a very narrow one, or anything in between

    4. I can't help but think that a woefully thought out decision could mean we are all facing meltdown. Anyone paying for the use of a location could potentially be affected by this result.

    5. Presumably they will ask all their 'free service' landowners if they would like to receive a nominal fee instead.

  5. cases now on MSE were PE have been challenged for a code Via the BPA , one case today , case dropped