The British Parking Association have has a rethink and have agreed to fully re-hear all stayed POPLA cases. Both parties will also be allowed to submit further representations.
The Prankster would like to thank everyone at IPSA for taking the stand they did, everyone who supplied evidence to IPSA..and of course the BPA for changing their mind once the true picture emerged.
The Prankster understands that the BPA letter confirming their decision will be made available on the BPA website in due course.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Finally common sense but what a fiasco. Are the BPA paying for it?
ReplyDeleteIs the new POPLA not having a re-education on the implications of the SC judgement and in particular the relevance of GPEOL? Aren't current appeals not being held up for that reason?
ReplyDeletethought they had already paid London councils for doing this?
ReplyDeleteFully reheard maybe...but by whom? New POPLA (best case), the IPC (unlikely, but you never know), or a group of random baristas tasked to deal with the 4000 outstanding cases on an "impartial" yet economical basis?
ReplyDeleteA new and independent service provider
Deletesee my post below
Amy idea what will happen to the UKPC cases that were put on hold during their suspension??
ReplyDelete"Following intervention by the Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals (ISPA), the British Parking Association (BPA) has re-considered its previous position regarding 3,500 POPLA appeals that were put on hold until the ParkingEye vs Beavis Supreme Court case judgment.
ReplyDeleteA new and independent service provider will now consider these appeals in their entirety, not purely on the basis of genuine pre-estimate of loss; additionally ISPA has appointed two new auditors to oversee the work to ensure judicial independence is maintained. The decision making process will commence shortly and it is anticipated that motorists should start receiving the outcome of their cases next month.
Chief Executive Patrick Troy says “We have considered carefully the new evidence drawn to our attention by ISPA, which was established by the BPA to oversee the independence of POPLA; This new evidence has caused us to look at this issue again and to revise the way in which these adjourned cases will be considered.. This must be the best outcome for motorists who can be confident that they will get a complete, fair and independent review of their Appeal following the Supreme Courts’ decision which confirms that the current charging level is lawful and reasonable and motorists parking on private land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions".
will They ensure people get the PPC evidence pack and the opportunity to rebut as promised by the BPA?
ReplyDeleteI personally object to another company hearing my appeal. I had followed their procedures, I adhered to their timescales and was advised that my appeal would be heard by POPLA. Their iner workings, change of systems is not my concern. I am told I breached a contract. Surely being advised that I had to appeal to POPLA was an extension of this? POPLA is still in existence? This is the same for all of us is it not? POPLA do now consider mitigating circumstances? I expect to be given the same consideration, I would gurss everyone else will expect this too? The internal workings, poor management of the appeals process and any changes should not impact on any of us. Is this legal what they are doing? If POPLA had gone into receivership then perhaps it may have been, but a change of their processes should not impact on those of us who appealed to POPLA. Am I alone in thinking this or do others feel the same?
ReplyDeleteIt will be heard under the POPLA brand. But this doesn't necessarily mean you will have London Councils or Ombudsman Services Ltd or XYZ do the assessment. The POPLA brand and the POPLA operator are two separate things.
ReplyDeleteNO , POPLa MUST organise a list of companies who are going to tender quotes for doing the job , they can not just employ any company out of yellow pages , or even cowboys from Knutsford
ReplyDeleteThank you both for this information. If they appoint a company would they have to adjudicate under the same terms that Popla now ise? I also hope that enquiries are open and rigorous on any companies who tender for this. Capita have a lot of fingers in a lot of pies, so as well as the Cheshire pretenders there will be some other dubious companies wanting to bid.Thankfully they will have some excellent eyes on them,
DeleteIt's worth noting that you are under no obligation whatsoever to accept any adverse assessment against you. I currently have a case in the pipeline I am helping on and I have warned the victim that the threat-o-gram chain might begin soon and if it does he is to pass all communications on to me to deal with. I will be citing Arkell Vs Pressdram (1971) just so they know what the position is.
DeleteFor ease of reference the case of Arkell -v_ Pressdram is summed up here.
Deletehttps://telescoper.wordpress.com/tag/private-eye-the-first-50-years/
We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: f**k off.
There are several people I know of that are getting these letters already, this is in breach of the BPA regulations and they are being reported, however will the BPA actually do anything? They are losing members at a rate of knots to IPC, they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them especially not P.E.
ReplyDelete