The British Parking Association have apparently appointed Wright Hassall to deal with the stayed POPLA cases, although they have not yet confirmed this.
Wright Hassall operate at the debt-collection end of the parking industry, sending out second stage debt collection letters on behalf of Gary Osner's firm ZZPS, and also filing claims on behalf of parking operators. This is therefore far from an independent appointment and The Prankster thinks it a wholly inappropriate choice.
There is now a huge of a conflict of interest. Wright Hassall already have relationships with the parking companies and have assisted with filing a number of claims. This means that they will potentially be having to deal with appeals involving their own clients. Even worse, as some courts have referred cases back to POPLA, there is also the possibility they will have to deal with their own cases.
If Wright Hassall start finding for motorists, what will they do about the similar cases they have filed on behalf of their clients? Will they recommend to their clients that they drop them? Will they feel obliged to rule for parking companies in order to not lose current customers and to not lose potential future customers. After all, its hardly a deal winner to have to say to your prospective customers that most of your claims are baseless.
If the appeal is turned down, and the motorist disagrees, will Wright Hassall be allowed to tout for business and file a claim on behalf of the parking company?
The Independent Appeals Service is secretive and furtive about the solicitors it uses for its decisions. There is therefore the possibility that Wright Hassall personnel also work for the IAS. As the IAS decisions are highly controversial, often showing either no parking related knowledge or obvious bias, this is a secondary worry.
Wright Hassall.
Aptly named for the nuisance factor they case to motorists. But not it seems a company who can deliver an independent service for the stayed POPLA appeals.
If you think that appointing a parking debt collector to hear stayed appeals is the wrong choice then consider voting for Barry Beavis's petition to introduce regulation into the private parking industry.
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
Wow! I'm surprised that barrel still has a bottom the amount of scraping it's had. The BPA have relentlessly championed POPLA since day one but somehow thought that choosing what would be the bottom end of the legal profession if Gladstones didn't exist, was giving motorists a fair deal.
ReplyDeleteRaising standards? Hmmmm.
And what does IPSA think of this decision. Nails are being forced into the coffin lid of PPc's. Don't they realise that they live in glass houses......
ReplyDeleteI am one of the people affected and there is no way I will consider letting them adjudicate my appeal! It needs every one affected to join as one voice! Wright Hassle will never be impartial. POPLA was named as the body who would hear my appeal, I expect this . May as well have given to the IPC, same difference.
ReplyDeletehazel , please let your comments be known at MSE and pepipoo , that way the "choir" might be formed
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it's worth a complaint to the SRA about the potential conflict of interest that WH are creating.
ReplyDeleteAm I missing something. I've followed the link to the website but I cannot see any mention on Wright Hassall's page that they are adjudicating at the request of the BPA?
ReplyDeleteclient confidentiality?
DeleteClient's often have little issue with having their status as clients advertised on a firm's website.
DeleteIn any event, the main point I am making is what source has this information come from if not Wright Hassall or the BPA?
It's not from ISPA either. The Prankster moves in mysterious ways :)
Deletejust checked my calendar , its not april the 1st yet
DeleteI have made it clear the BPA have not yet officially announced this. However, I am confident of my sources.
DeleteThe "contract"between the motorist and the parking company"(PPC) clearly says POPLA are the appeal body.This can only change if the motorist agrees to it.If not then the PPC/BPA have to cease any further action.Equally the registered keepers details were obtained on the bases that POPLA would be the appeal body.As this has now changed this would means that these details were obtained under deceit!! If anyone other than POPLA were to hear the appeal(this would of course have to be the "old" POPLA not the new one as the contract does not allow for a change of organisation at the whim of the PPC or BPA) then the contract is void.It's not the motorist fault that the BPA/PPC changed providers so they have to take the loss.
Deletethey are to busy setting up a new company name and website , can't have the customer knowing the connection , can they
ReplyDelete"………..setting up a new company name and website."
DeleteI can't believe it's not POPLA :)
POOPLa more like it
DeletePerverted Or Perfidious Legal Acumen (Ltd)
DeleteYou'll see in the IPC Code of Practice that it says that the appeal process must be impartial with no connection or input from the IPC itself.
ReplyDeleteImpartial cannot surely mean being muscled over by the very founders of the IPC itself who then take legal action in their other guise on behalf of members whose appeals have been won but not paid.
--------------------------------------
The Independent Appeals Service is a service administered by the IPC as an additional and FREE safeguard to the motorist which allows a person aggrieved by the issue of a Parking Charge Notice to have the matter adjudicated upon by an independent adjudicator.
Whilst the IAS is administered by the IPC, the adjudicator is entirely independent and impartial.
IAS adjudicators are:
• Practising Solicitors or Barristers
• Independent of the operator and the motorist.
• Engaged under a contract of self-employment that requires them to observe their professional duties of independence.
It is a condition of their appointment that they consider only the legal merits of an appeal.
They are expressly prohibited from exercising any favour or bias and are not accountable to the IPC, the operator or the motorist in any way in their adjudication of an appeal. Their decision is final and binding upon the operator under the terms of their IPC membership.
The independence of the adjudicators is paramount in ensuring motorists see their appeals are considered fairly. You agree to indemnify the IPC against the decisions of the IAS.
deffo 1st April if FT's crap is to be believed....
Deletetweet tweet http://tinypic.com/r/2a4rg8z/9
ReplyDeletestop laughing at the back
Wright Hassall? Surely that's a joke name, like Biggus Dickus.
ReplyDeleteAnd if anyone thought that Right Arsole would be neutral in any of this, take a look here.
ReplyDeletehttp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70112851#post70112851
I have had written confirmation from AOS as I emailed them and asked a lot of questions! I will ask Barry or Tony to forward it so people can not only see the details but how condescending they are to me regarding their choice!
ReplyDeleteSend that to Pranky. It sounds like it's right up his alley.
DeleteSo thats all the Stayed POPLA cases 'lost' to the motorist then....
ReplyDelete