ISPA disagree with Wright Hassall hiding assessor names

ISPA have released the follwing statement regarding Wright Hassall

ISPA believes for PoPLA to be fair – and be seen to be fair – that the decision maker in each individual appeal should be named. This was the practice whilst PoPLA was run by London Councils and is the practice under Ombudsman Services. A third provider, Wright Hassall, is also running the PoPLA scheme. Wright Hassall is dealing mainly with cases which were adjourned until the decision in Parking Eye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 87.
At the present time Wright Hassall is not naming the decision maker. The firm is considering ISPA’s request that the decision maker be named but has raised legitimate concerns about staff welfare and practical implications. ISPA believes these concerns can be overcome as they were by London Councils and Ombudsman Services. ISPA can, however, only make recommendations to Wright Hassall it cannot compel it to follow those recommendations.

The Prankster disagrees that these are legitimate concerns. If Wright Hassall did not want to name their assessors, then they should not have tendered for the contract in the first place.

The Prankster also considers that the real reason that the assessors do not want to be named is that their incompetence will then be on record which could be career harming for years to come.

For instance, The Prankster has been contacted by one motorist who received a ticket even though she was not parked in an area where the operator was allowed to issue tickets. Wright Hassall ruled against the motorist even though in their appeal they clearly showed the place where the car was parked which was outside the enforcement boundary. Wright Hassall clearly did not consider the evidence properly.

In another case Wright Hassall ruled a contract was in place even though this would have required the motorist to read a huge amount of text in a tiny font as they whizzed past. The Prankster considers that no competent solicitor would rule a contract is in place in those situations. A contract requires a meeting of minds, which is clearly impossible if one party never has a chance to read it.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster