The Prankster has made enquiries of POPLA and found that this is to wait for the results of the Beavis judgment.
The Prankster wonders whether it is in the remit of POPLA to delay assessments in this manner, and wonders where it should all end. Should Civil Enforcement cases be suspended until the criminal hearing is over?
Should all cases be suspended, or just ParkingEye ones?
Have ParkingEye put undue influence on POPLA to delay assessments? If so, this is especially cynical given they have denied the existence of the appeal to courts up and down the land for the last year.
The Prankster wonders if ParkingEye have already made up their mind which way the verdict will go. Large number of appeals to ParkingEye which would normally have been accepted have been rejected.
Finally, as ParkingEye have not even submitted any evidence for the cases in question, The Prankster considers it is outside the assessors remit to delay the case. If ParkingEye cannot be bothered to reply on time, then the appeal should be automatically be upheld. POPLA's contract with the BPA requires them to only allow 28 days for evidence to be submitted.
The Prankster has asked the Lead Adjudicator to comment and it is hoped something will be on the POPLA website later today.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
I'm not sure why this is a problem? You have regularly assisted defendants in getting their court cases stayed pending the outcome - why shouldn't POPLA follow that lead?
ReplyDeleteSomething tells me that the difference in this instance is that you see POPLA as a guaranteed win where the County Court is not.
I have no problem if this is all above board and not due to undue influence. I would need some stated guidelines POPLA follow in future. Eg what kind of cases will they hold up assessments for? For how long? Will POPLA scour court listings or is it up to the motorist/parking company to request adjournments? Does this disadvantage the motorist, who knows nothing about upcoming cases? Should all Civil Enforcement cases be stayed pending the criminal case? Why are ParkingEye allowed to file evidence late, but motorists never allowed to do this?
DeleteThe issue is - ParkingEye doesn't mention in their court claims that there's an appeal pending before the Court of Appeal. They obviously know that this means many district judges would stay proceedings. So how come they want to have POPLA claims stayed, but not county court claims? Of course because they know that they lose at POPLA guaranteed, but that they have a fair chance to win in the county courts, particularly if the defendants are unrepresented and don't know that the Court of Appeal has decided the case. It is shameful behaviour from POPLA and ParkingEye once again.
DeleteGive over PP, you know that if POPLA were ruling in favour of PE on GPEOL you would be campaigning for POPLA to do exactly what they are doing here
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you are completely wrong. For instance, the IAS rule in favour of parking companies on GPEOL. I am not campaigning for them to hold off cases until Beavis. What I am after is transparency, and not some rubbish saying 'unfortunately we have had to reschedule your appeal'. If POPLA want to reschedule, they need to be transparent about the reasons and provide guidelines as to when and how this will happen in the future.
DeleteComplete bollox Mick. If at current POPLA would rule in favour of ParkingEye on GPEOL then the advice would be to ignore it, just as the sham/scam IPC "Independent Appeals System". Because the current valid law is that anything which isn't a GPEOL is an unlawful penalty.
DeleteThat's not the current law at all - there is an exception where there is commercial justification. In actual fact, as hard as it may be to swallow, until the result of the appeal the current law is closer to suggesting that there is a commercial justification in such situations given that PE won the initial case and the judgment from the Court of Appeal has not been down yet.
DeletePP all of those are valid points, but I struggle to believe that if the 'GPEOL POPLA Decisions' shoe was on the other foot and PE were winning them, and POPLA then stayed the case until the result of appeal, you would be demanding the same transparency.
I don't think that's right. I thought it was generally agreed by the CoA's Makdessi judgement that commercial justification can only ever exist in the absence of deterrence, and this is what the current law states. I hope you don't consider Moloney's judgement to be more persuasive than the CoA?
DeleteAnd of course commercial justification can also only exist in contracts of parties with equal bargaining power. Not quite the business to consumer context then.
But how can the predominant purpose be that of deterrence when as we keep pointing out PE don't WANT to deter you from breaching because if you do they lose money?
DeleteAh sorry but this is where it goes off the beaten track. Of course generally they want people to break their contracts because this is how they make their money. But for any specific contract entered into (allegedly) between ParkingEye and the motorist, the penalty levied for breach is imposed as a deterrence.
Delete'That's not the current law at all - there is an exception where there is commercial justification.'
DeleteContract law provides for the claimant only getting back to the position they were in prior to the breech. If this appeal goes for PE then this ruling will only apply where they pay a fee to the landowner to be able to control the parking e.g. the £1000 per month.
It is interesting that they've decided to stay the cases - but I would imagine this is something that POPLA have chosen to do off their own back than having had PE ask them to do so.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it would be interesting to know if they have the right to do so. I can't seem to find anything in the legislation regarding appeals (one to write to your MP on maybe?)
I think it is extremely unlikely that POPLA have taken this step on their own. I think it's much more likely that ParkingEye have asked them to do so. If the Beavis case goes in favour of ParkingEye then they can validly claim all the POPLA wins which they currently would lose. If the Beavis case goes against ParkingEye then they have much bigger issues to face than sorting out those POPLA cases. So they can only win from this delay at POPLA. This together with the fact that ParkingEye has now started rejecting appeals again (rather than simply cancelling them) shows that this is intentional.
DeleteBut if there is no evidence has been submitted to Popla to counter an appeal, how can they even get a win, this looks like that Popla is doing this unfairly, and complaints should pour in about this action.
DeleteShouldn't the POPLA stayed cases only relate to those sites where PE pay a 'fishing licence'?
ReplyDeleteMick isn't by any chance Perkins Esq?
Agreed, this stay should only apply to the sites where PE pay a fee to the landowner in return for them being able to operate there. Of course if PE win at CoA they will cry commercial justification for everything. Should they lose they will claim it only applies to the sites where they pay this fee.
DeleteWhoever Mick is, it is clear he works for a PPC. If it is Perkins then at least he is one of the more honest guys in this sordid industry.
Quoi?
DeleteJust saying that if you are Michael Perkins then you are one of the more honest guys in the parking industry.
DeleteIf you are not Perky then forgive me and ignore my comments...
No idea who Michael Perkins is, you are forgiven ;)
DeleteNo problem, which PPC do you work for?
DeleteIf he was, would that make him The Perkin Prankster?
DeleteHow does Beavis effect popla ? Is it PE win and no more GPEOL and PE lose all GPEOL upheld ? Be nice to know before the result !
ReplyDeleteThis is one possibility. The other is that it is not the silver bullet either side hopes for and the situation remains as clear as mud.
DeleteI was being facetious. We all know it's PE win and no more GPEOL, PE lose & the rues change to suit.
DeleteIf PE cannot offer a alternate resolution system (ie POPLA) then they are failing the criteria set by the government , so the BPA should suspend them until they can offer the service
ReplyDeletesuspension would mean loosing DVLA rights as well.