The Parking Prankster has noticed several new additions to Tracy Kiss's blog on fighting a parking charge from UKPC.
In particular, her new battle against the DVLA reveals what a determined lady can achieve against the turgid bureaucratic behemoth that the DVLA has become. Originally, the DVLA refused to release necessary information which would have allowed Tracy to continue her fight. Instead, they wanted to charge her £5 for the privilege.
They do this, because they are frightened of the amount it will cost them if significant numbers of motorists query them for their right to this information. This email exchange shows their thought processes.
Their new strategy is particularly dimwitted. By changing her request into a formal complaint against the DVLA, the DVLA were finally required to release for free the very information they first refused her. Instead of a relatively cheap enquiry that a DVLA data processing minion could have completed in seconds, it required a prolonged email exchange with 3 DVLA employees; Gregory Evans, Letitia Lloyd and David Dunford.
Tracy has now blazed the way! The Prankster predicted here that the DVLA would have to release the data you were after if you worded your enquiry as a complaint. Tracy has not only proved this to be correct but has shown us all the way to do it.
The Prankster has taken heart from all this. He has had his own FoI request stymied three times while investigating a parking company deliberately issuing out of time parking tickets against himself. He has now followed Tracy's example (and taken his own advice!) and has filed a complaint against the DVLA.
Would you like to know the result? Er...so would The Prankster. Two weeks and three emails into the enquiry and the Prankster has not heard a peep from the DVLA - not even an acknowledgement! Perhaps the DVLA have all gone on holiday? Perhaps they have all resigned and work somewhere else? Perhaps they are all busy answering Tracy Kiss's emails! Anyway, the Prankster will keep you updated once the situation is resolved.
If you read Tracy's blog, don't forget to check out the comments too. The story of Chris, the neighbour of the MD of UKPC, Mr Rupert Williams, sticking all his notices back though his letterbox, is hilarious.
Also see here for the six monthly report from the DVLA chief executive...as it should have been written.
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
Saturday, 6 July 2013
Friday, 5 July 2013
Mark Williams, MP for Ceredigion, raises parking issues
Parking issues are a hot topic at the moment. The Prankster hears that many MPs are receiving complaints from disgruntled constituents. Mark Williams, MP for Ceredigion, raised the worries of some of his disabled constituents, threatened with civil court proceedings even though they were perfectly entitled to park where they did.
On the subject of court cases, one of the key non-monetised benefits put forward by the parking industry for introducing keeper liability was that the number of civil court cases would fall. This is documented in this impact assessment document.
Page 2 states one of the three key benefits as "A reduction in the number of cases taken to court, due to the introduction of an independent appeals service, which in turn would benefit the Criminal Justice System."
This seems not to have been the case. A freedom of information request reveals that the total number of court claims issued in 2012 by the parking industry was 600. 34 of these went to hearing.
Compare this with the post keeper liability activities of just one parking company, ParkingEye. In June 2013 alone they issued around 2000 court claims. Yes, that's right! In one month, one parking company issued more than 3 times as many claims as the whole parking industry last year. Of course, we won't have figures on how many of these are going to court until much later; there seems to be quite a delay in the small claims system at the moment. The Parking Prankster wonders how much of this is due to the current ParkingEye feeding frenzy.
The Prankster also wonders how much extra cost and strain this is putting on the justice system. He has no figures for this at the moment.
No doubt it will be offset by the savings the DVLA will be making. The sole financial justification for keeper liability was: "Reductions in administrative burdens on DVLA due to fewer claims being processed from the issue of parking charges (costs to DVLA are recovered via the fee charged for providing vehicle keeper information)."
The Prankster has no figures for the actual reduction achieved by the DVLA so far. He assumes they are mighty and wondrous; he is slightly worried by this email though.
Perhaps the DVLA won't be saving money after all. The Prankster will keep an eye on this situation. Or perhaps an EYE01. (In joke, sorry!)
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
On the subject of court cases, one of the key non-monetised benefits put forward by the parking industry for introducing keeper liability was that the number of civil court cases would fall. This is documented in this impact assessment document.
Page 2 states one of the three key benefits as "A reduction in the number of cases taken to court, due to the introduction of an independent appeals service, which in turn would benefit the Criminal Justice System."
This seems not to have been the case. A freedom of information request reveals that the total number of court claims issued in 2012 by the parking industry was 600. 34 of these went to hearing.
Compare this with the post keeper liability activities of just one parking company, ParkingEye. In June 2013 alone they issued around 2000 court claims. Yes, that's right! In one month, one parking company issued more than 3 times as many claims as the whole parking industry last year. Of course, we won't have figures on how many of these are going to court until much later; there seems to be quite a delay in the small claims system at the moment. The Parking Prankster wonders how much of this is due to the current ParkingEye feeding frenzy.
The Prankster also wonders how much extra cost and strain this is putting on the justice system. He has no figures for this at the moment.
No doubt it will be offset by the savings the DVLA will be making. The sole financial justification for keeper liability was: "Reductions in administrative burdens on DVLA due to fewer claims being processed from the issue of parking charges (costs to DVLA are recovered via the fee charged for providing vehicle keeper information)."
The Prankster has no figures for the actual reduction achieved by the DVLA so far. He assumes they are mighty and wondrous; he is slightly worried by this email though.
Sent: 05 April 2013 08:55
Subject: FW: Requests from the public
Hi,
We have a query regarding members of the public obtaining information from the DVLA and what format they should be submitting this in.
[...]
This may or may not be of any relevance but the internet forums are providing standard templates for individuals to email/post in to DVLA requesting this information so the volume of this type of request is increasing. Example attached.The full email exchange can be seen here.
Perhaps the DVLA won't be saving money after all. The Prankster will keep an eye on this situation. Or perhaps an EYE01. (In joke, sorry!)
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Thursday, 4 July 2013
Aldigate - day 11
Aldi's PR disaster continues into its 11th day. The Prankster popped over to their facebook page to check out the bargains, but as usual the page was swamped with people complaining about parking. The old regulars are still there, but this campaign cannot be attributed to just one or two people. It looks like customer services are backed up for the next 3 weeks over this issue.
The Prankster thinks it's fine to want control over control over your own car park; but doing it the Aldi way is clearly wrong. If car parks are being abused then there are better ways to manage the situation than to penalise the elderly, the slow and the infirm. And of course, that other class of shopper - the ones who take their time and spend a whoppingly large amount of money at your stores.
The Prankster hopes Aldi will grow a pair and put together a proper parking strategy. The Prankster would like to point out to all supermarkets that giving money to parking scammers whose only incentive is to issue the maximum amount of fines is not going to improve parking management...except in respect of the lessening of cars due to the exodus to competitor stores.
Ker-ching! There goes another £2600 a year.
The Prankster would like to refer any shoppers given tickets in a supermarket car park to this helpful advice on parkingcowboys.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
The Prankster thinks it's fine to want control over control over your own car park; but doing it the Aldi way is clearly wrong. If car parks are being abused then there are better ways to manage the situation than to penalise the elderly, the slow and the infirm. And of course, that other class of shopper - the ones who take their time and spend a whoppingly large amount of money at your stores.
The Prankster hopes Aldi will grow a pair and put together a proper parking strategy. The Prankster would like to point out to all supermarkets that giving money to parking scammers whose only incentive is to issue the maximum amount of fines is not going to improve parking management...except in respect of the lessening of cars due to the exodus to competitor stores.
Ker-ching! There goes another £2600 a year.
The Prankster would like to refer any shoppers given tickets in a supermarket car park to this helpful advice on parkingcowboys.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
DVLA Announce New Motorist-Friendly Services
This is how The Prankster imagines that the DVLA will announce their new regime once the penny finally drops.
Today the DVLA would like to announce a new motorist-friendly aspect to our Data Protection services. You will remember we were caught with our pants down recently when we said we checked private parking company Parking Charge Notices for compliance, and then it turned out we didn't after all? And when we tried to stiff motorists for £5 when we only charge private parking companies £2.50?
Honestly, we wouldn't be surprised if the general public think we shuffle around with our pants around our ankles all day, waiting for a stern birching from any private parking company employees that happen to be wandering around. We can assure you that is not the case. Private parking company employees have to make an appointment like anyone else.
Anyway, we rethought it all, and would like to announce that we will shortly be providing a service to verify the notices sent out. Once we agree they are compliant, we will post template pictures of notices from that company up on our website, together with an easy to follow guide explaining how all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 are met. Pictures, numbers and arrows; that kind of thing.
In the meantime, a quick check of the notices sent out by private parking companies showed that actually none of them are compliant. The private parking companies know this, of course. Therefore, until we get our act together and start the audit, any private parking company sending you a notice mentioning the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 is quite possibly committing fraud.
Please therefore send in a copy of your notice to our complaints department, and we will investigate.
The address to use is:
Release of Information
Paying Enquiries Section
DVLA
Swansea
S99 1AJ
Please enclose a short covering note.
I would like to complain that you have released my data inappropriately. I enclose a Parking Charge showing that I am being pursued as the keeper, while the notice is clearly not compliant. Please investigate and take the appropriate action.
As we currently help line the pockets of private parking companies to the tune of 2 million tickets a year, we hope we can get our auditing done before we get swamped with your requests, but as we are the DVLA we are not making any promises.
We would also like to announce a second exciting initiative. Whenever we get a request for your data, we will send you a letter explaining this has happened, and the reasons behind it. We thought that this would be impossible until one bright spark in data processing reminded us that we already had your address. Duh! Sometimes we can't see our hand in front of our face (to be fair, this is usually because we are wearing our pants over our head, which only happens on Fridays)
We will fund this at no cost to the taxpayer by increasing the charge to the private parking company. After a month of consultation we discovered that the cost of a second class stamp is 50p, and that black and white printing costs were 1p a page. After another month of consultation we discovered that the £2.50 we charge the private parking company was almost all pure profit. They send us the request electronically and our computers automatically reply. It's like magic, only without any Harry Potters. It practically costs nothing at all. That was a bit embarrassing because we seem to remember categorically stating that we made no profit from this, while it turns out we made almost £5 million. Whoops, trousers down time again.
Anyway, we might be minded to up the cost to the private parking company to £3.00 because if we can't stiff it to the motorist any more we will need another whipping boy.
As before, we don't know how long it will take to do this, so if you want to know if a parking company was compliant with the required timescales when accessing your data, please word your request as a complaint (see above). Otherwise we might accidently still charge you the £5.
In the interests of getting the ball rolling, The Prankster waives all copyright on his imaginary press release. The DVLA may freely copy and use any and all parts of the text they wish to.
On a serious note, The Prankster firmly believes that none of the current Parking Charge Notices are compliant with the regulations. On that note, the address to complain to is:
I would like to complain that you have released my data inappropriately. I enclose a Parking Charge showing that I am being pursued as the keeper, while the notice is clearly not compliant. Please investigate and take the appropriate action.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Press Release - Embargoed until we get our act together
Today the DVLA would like to announce a new motorist-friendly aspect to our Data Protection services. You will remember we were caught with our pants down recently when we said we checked private parking company Parking Charge Notices for compliance, and then it turned out we didn't after all? And when we tried to stiff motorists for £5 when we only charge private parking companies £2.50?
Honestly, we wouldn't be surprised if the general public think we shuffle around with our pants around our ankles all day, waiting for a stern birching from any private parking company employees that happen to be wandering around. We can assure you that is not the case. Private parking company employees have to make an appointment like anyone else.
Anyway, we rethought it all, and would like to announce that we will shortly be providing a service to verify the notices sent out. Once we agree they are compliant, we will post template pictures of notices from that company up on our website, together with an easy to follow guide explaining how all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 are met. Pictures, numbers and arrows; that kind of thing.
In the meantime, a quick check of the notices sent out by private parking companies showed that actually none of them are compliant. The private parking companies know this, of course. Therefore, until we get our act together and start the audit, any private parking company sending you a notice mentioning the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 is quite possibly committing fraud.
Please therefore send in a copy of your notice to our complaints department, and we will investigate.
The address to use is:
Release of Information
Paying Enquiries Section
DVLA
Swansea
S99 1AJ
Please enclose a short covering note.
I would like to complain that you have released my data inappropriately. I enclose a Parking Charge showing that I am being pursued as the keeper, while the notice is clearly not compliant. Please investigate and take the appropriate action.
As we currently help line the pockets of private parking companies to the tune of 2 million tickets a year, we hope we can get our auditing done before we get swamped with your requests, but as we are the DVLA we are not making any promises.
EXCITING!
We would also like to announce a second exciting initiative. Whenever we get a request for your data, we will send you a letter explaining this has happened, and the reasons behind it. We thought that this would be impossible until one bright spark in data processing reminded us that we already had your address. Duh! Sometimes we can't see our hand in front of our face (to be fair, this is usually because we are wearing our pants over our head, which only happens on Fridays)
We will fund this at no cost to the taxpayer by increasing the charge to the private parking company. After a month of consultation we discovered that the cost of a second class stamp is 50p, and that black and white printing costs were 1p a page. After another month of consultation we discovered that the £2.50 we charge the private parking company was almost all pure profit. They send us the request electronically and our computers automatically reply. It's like magic, only without any Harry Potters. It practically costs nothing at all. That was a bit embarrassing because we seem to remember categorically stating that we made no profit from this, while it turns out we made almost £5 million. Whoops, trousers down time again.
Anyway, we might be minded to up the cost to the private parking company to £3.00 because if we can't stiff it to the motorist any more we will need another whipping boy.
As before, we don't know how long it will take to do this, so if you want to know if a parking company was compliant with the required timescales when accessing your data, please word your request as a complaint (see above). Otherwise we might accidently still charge you the £5.
No Copyright
In the interests of getting the ball rolling, The Prankster waives all copyright on his imaginary press release. The DVLA may freely copy and use any and all parts of the text they wish to.
On a serious note, The Prankster firmly believes that none of the current Parking Charge Notices are compliant with the regulations. On that note, the address to complain to is:
Release of InformationAnd as copyright is waived, an appropriate cover note might be:
Paying Enquiries Section
DVLA
Swansea
S99 1AJ
I would like to complain that you have released my data inappropriately. I enclose a Parking Charge showing that I am being pursued as the keeper, while the notice is clearly not compliant. Please investigate and take the appropriate action.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Wednesday, 3 July 2013
Call to Action - Why are POPLA hiding the real reasons to appeal
The Parking Prankster noticed this thread on moneysavingexpert. The original poster, suzewuze, clearly believes she cannot appeal to POPLA, despite the urgings and exhortations of the resident experts. She has been convinced by this statement on the POPLA site.
The irony is, suzewuze has a perfectly valid reason for appealing, which is essentially 'the signage is not up to scratch.' See here, for an example where The Prankster won at POPLA appealing only on this point. (It obviously did not help Highview Parking's case that they sent in a map of the wrong car-park. As Highview Parking's customer of the Month, March 2013 (self-appointed) The Prankster urges them to get their act together.)
However, suzewuze steadfastly refuses to believe she can appeal, which is hardly surprising given the only example reason:
The Prankster considers that the explanation given, 'the aim is simply to focus the motorist's mind' is a load of baloney. The Prankster thinks it is more likely that the parking industry do not want to let the motorist know the best reasons to get their appeal upheld.
At the time, The Prankster wrote you would need to be clairvoyant to realise you could appeal on any grounds. As suzewuze's confusion shows, The Prankster was obviously not far off the mark.
The Lead Adjudicator of POPLA, Henry Michael Greenslade, commented further in the POPLA annual report (bizarrely issued after only 6 months).
The Prankster considers this to be pure flim-flam. The only reason not to list too many suggestions is to pull the wool over motorists eyes and to try and make them unaware they can appeal. The Pranksters considers that a more apt way or rephrasing the above might be 'the list is deficient for the intended consequence of putting off a motorist with a genuine case'
Given his reluctance to take action, perhaps the 'Lead' in Lead Adjudicator should be pronounced to rhyme with 'bed' rather than 'bead'.
Given that most of the reported reasons appeals are upheld are for breaches of the British Parking Association Limited (BPA Ltd) Code of Practice, the Prankster thinks it's time this was addressed.
Call to Action
The Prankster would therefore like to issue his first Call to Action, and ask POPLA to clarify matters by adding a fifth condition to the website.
POPLA Appeals
The irony is, suzewuze has a perfectly valid reason for appealing, which is essentially 'the signage is not up to scratch.' See here, for an example where The Prankster won at POPLA appealing only on this point. (It obviously did not help Highview Parking's case that they sent in a map of the wrong car-park. As Highview Parking's customer of the Month, March 2013 (self-appointed) The Prankster urges them to get their act together.)
However, suzewuze steadfastly refuses to believe she can appeal, which is hardly surprising given the only example reason:
I had sold the vehicleNow, The Prankster knows that 'I am not liable for the parking charge' is a catch-all that can be used for any and all reasons. So does the Lead Adjudicator of POPLA. Here is his report detailed in the January 2013 minutes of the AOS.
The Prankster considers that the explanation given, 'the aim is simply to focus the motorist's mind' is a load of baloney. The Prankster thinks it is more likely that the parking industry do not want to let the motorist know the best reasons to get their appeal upheld.
At the time, The Prankster wrote you would need to be clairvoyant to realise you could appeal on any grounds. As suzewuze's confusion shows, The Prankster was obviously not far off the mark.
The Lead Adjudicator of POPLA, Henry Michael Greenslade, commented further in the POPLA annual report (bizarrely issued after only 6 months).
The Prankster considers this to be pure flim-flam. The only reason not to list too many suggestions is to pull the wool over motorists eyes and to try and make them unaware they can appeal. The Pranksters considers that a more apt way or rephrasing the above might be 'the list is deficient for the intended consequence of putting off a motorist with a genuine case'
Given that most of the reported reasons appeals are upheld are for breaches of the British Parking Association Limited (BPA Ltd) Code of Practice, the Prankster thinks it's time this was addressed.
Call to Action
The Prankster would therefore like to issue his first Call to Action, and ask POPLA to clarify matters by adding a fifth condition to the website.
- The Operator was in breach of the BPA ltd Code of Practice: eg they did not have a contract with the landowner; the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage is inadequate; they did not complete the appeal and issue a POPLA code within 35 days.
The Prankster would also like the POPLA site to link to the BPA Ltd Code of Practice page and to inform motorists that if they are appealing on these grounds they should also make a complaint to the BPA Ltd via their web site.
The Prankster asks therefore that you do the following.
If you are a motorist who thought you could not appeal to POPLA, but now realise you can, please make London Councils, the people who run POPLA, aware of your views. You can complain that you have been misled here.
It would be better if you used your own words, but a sample complaint would run something like this.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am complaining about the wording used on the POPLA web site at http://www.popla.org.uk/makinganappeal.htm#grounds.
The 'grounds for appeal' section is misleading. It is clear that a large number of appeals are won because the Operator is flouting the British Parking Association Limited Code of Practice.
The appeals service is required to be impartial. I regard an appeals service which tries to hide away and obfuscate a large section of the possible grounds for appeal as clearly not impartial. Now that this matter has been drawn to your attention I trust that you will rectify matters with extreme urgency. The parking industry requires an impartial adjudication service; if your service is proven not to be impartial, the whole parking industry will come crashing down.
I request that the POPLA web site, the paper appeal copies sent to motorists, and all other documentation be updated within 7 days to bring this to motorist's attention. I request that the category 'breach of the BPA Ltd code of practice' be added, and that examples of the most common breaches are added.
- The Operator was in breach of the BPA Ltd Code of Practice: eg they did not have a contract with the landowner; the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage is inadequate; they did not complete the appeal and issue a POPLA code within 35 days.
Furthermore, in order that the motorist be aware of the possible breaches I request that links be given to the BPA Ltd Code of Practice page.
Furthermore, I request that where a breach of the code of practice has occurred, the page informs the motorist of the correct procedures to report this to the BPA Ltd.
Furthermore, where a breach of the code of practice is upheld as an appeal reason, I request that the POPLA adjudicator both reports in their adjudication how to take this further with the BPA Ltd, and also POPLA themselves report the matter to the BPA Ltd.
In addition, until this matter has been rectified, The Prankster would like to make a further request to those people submitting POPLA appeals. Please add one more point to your appeal.
In order to satisfy keeper liability, the Operator must provide me access to an independent appeal body. I do not consider POPLA to be independent because the web site hides away a significant category of appeal criteria, namely that the Operator is in breach of the BPA Ltd code of practice. As a significant number of appeals are won on these grounds I consider that by not explicitly drawing this to the attention of motorists, the independence of POPLA is seriously compromised. As the Operator has not satisfied keeper liability, and has offered no proof as to who the driver is, I request my appeal be upheld.
Tuesday, 2 July 2013
Has the BPA Ltd grown teeth?
The British Parking Association Ltd (BPA) operates a sanction scheme. If the members of the Approved Operators Scheme (AOS ) transgress they get awarded sanction points. 12 points in any 12 month period means a ban from the DVLA database and therefore no parking loot coming in until the ban expires. It's a bit like getting 12 points on your driving licence, except if you lose you might go bankrupt instead of having to get intimately acquainted with all the local bus timetables.
In the past, this has been a bit of a murky affair kept behind closed doors. This led to accusations of toothlessness and that the BPA Ltd would not ban its members because otherwise they would just leave.
Since 1st October, the BPA Ltd have gained a bit of a backbone. Parking Operators are required to join an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) to get access to the DVLA database, and the BPA Ltd was the only game in town. You either joined it, or stopped collecting cash from motorists. That meant the BPA Ltd could finally impose sanctions without fear of its members leaving.
So how is it doing?
Well, here is a link to the latest list for June, plus the list for last year too.
As we can see, there are quite a lot of sanctions - 13 companies have been issued with sanctions out of the AOS list of 171 - thats just over 7%.
Nobody got suspended in June, but 3 operators are quite close with 10 points. Only another 2 to go lads! You better keep your noses clean for the next year!
The list of reasons for sanction points is quite revealing too. It seems quite a few operators think it's fine to operate with no signage or contract, to operate with deficient signs, or to ignore the BPA Ltd.
It appears they have not quite got to grips with POPLA yet either. Members have been sanction for refusing to supply a POPLA code, failing to tell the motorist about POPLA and demanding money while the appeal is ongoing
The BPA Ltd is to be commended for growing a pair and also for adding transparency to the process by publishing the lists of sanction points awarded.
Only time will tell whether this will continue. Now there is a new kid on the block, sanction points might suddenly become few and far between again. Will a member suspended from one ATA be able to join the other? The Prankster hopes not.
Meanwhile, have you had a parking charge imposed from a Private Parking Company (PPC) where any of the following applied?
You can also do this online here, but this facility is limited and cannot accept attachments.
The BPA Ltd will then investigate your concerns, as noted by the BPA Ltd code of practice 6.4, and report back to you on their findings.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
In the past, this has been a bit of a murky affair kept behind closed doors. This led to accusations of toothlessness and that the BPA Ltd would not ban its members because otherwise they would just leave.
Since 1st October, the BPA Ltd have gained a bit of a backbone. Parking Operators are required to join an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) to get access to the DVLA database, and the BPA Ltd was the only game in town. You either joined it, or stopped collecting cash from motorists. That meant the BPA Ltd could finally impose sanctions without fear of its members leaving.
So how is it doing?
Well, here is a link to the latest list for June, plus the list for last year too.
As we can see, there are quite a lot of sanctions - 13 companies have been issued with sanctions out of the AOS list of 171 - thats just over 7%.
Nobody got suspended in June, but 3 operators are quite close with 10 points. Only another 2 to go lads! You better keep your noses clean for the next year!
The list of reasons for sanction points is quite revealing too. It seems quite a few operators think it's fine to operate with no signage or contract, to operate with deficient signs, or to ignore the BPA Ltd.
It appears they have not quite got to grips with POPLA yet either. Members have been sanction for refusing to supply a POPLA code, failing to tell the motorist about POPLA and demanding money while the appeal is ongoing
The BPA Ltd is to be commended for growing a pair and also for adding transparency to the process by publishing the lists of sanction points awarded.
Only time will tell whether this will continue. Now there is a new kid on the block, sanction points might suddenly become few and far between again. Will a member suspended from one ATA be able to join the other? The Prankster hopes not.
Meanwhile, have you had a parking charge imposed from a Private Parking Company (PPC) where any of the following applied?
- No signs, worn or defaced signs, or obscured signs in the car park
- The PPC did not supply a POPLA code when it rejected your appeal
- The PPC did not tell you about POPLA
- The PPC offered to appeal to POPLA on your behalf
- The PPC told you that you could only appeal to POPLA using the same points you used when appealing to them
- The PPC took more than 35 days to reject your appeal, and you informed it you would not be entering into further correspondence
- The PPC or debt collector sent you a letter asking for money while its own or POPLA's appeal process was underway
- POPLA upheld your appeal because the PPC did not show a contract with the landowner as required by the BPA Ltd code of practice 7.1
- POPLA upheld your appeal because the signage was deficient
- POPLA upheld your appeal because the PPC did not show a breakdown of their pre-estimate of loss as required by the BPA Ltd code of practice 19.5
- POPLA upheld your appeal for practically any other reason (probably)
- A parking charge where the amount charged is clearly ridiculous, such as £100, and therefore cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss as required by the BPA Ltd code of practice 19.5
- A parking charge where the Notice to Keeper sent to you was not compliant with the requirements of paragraph 8 or 9 the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (this will be most of them) and the PPC then tried to pursue you as the Registered Keeper
- A parking charge where the PPC took no notice of your appeal points, instead sent you a generic letter which did not answer your specific points, and therefore did not deal with your appeal fairly as required by the BPA Ltd code of practice 22.1
If any of these apply to you, then the address to bring this to the attention of the BPA Ltd is
British Parking Association
AOS Operator Compliance
Stuart House, 41-43 Perrymount Road
Haywards Heath
West Sussex
RH16 3BN
You can also do this online here, but this facility is limited and cannot accept attachments.
The BPA Ltd will then investigate your concerns, as noted by the BPA Ltd code of practice 6.4, and report back to you on their findings.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Monday, 1 July 2013
ParkingEye anti-news page
This is a tribute to the ParkingEye news page, found here.
This is how the page would look if The Prankster wrote it
This is how the page would look if The Prankster wrote it
ParkingEye wins at their first County Court Hearing post Protection of Freedoms Act
Date: 4th June 2013
ParkingEye, in their first County Court Hearing since the arrival of Keeper Liability and the Protection of Freedoms Act, gained a resounding win. Luckily the defendant hadn't heard the law had changed and the poor sap tried to argue he was not the driver. Even better, neither he nor the judge spotted our Parking Charge notices were not compliant (we forgot to name 'the creditor' - oops!) and so we pulled one out of the fire! Whoopee doo! It's just like winning on penalties after extra time! Or The Tour de France on drugs! The defendant had to pay ParkingEye the £100 Parking Charge plus costs.
ParkingEye would like to thank LPC – who attended the court on behalf of ParkingEye – for their successful work on this matter.
As we pay LPC at least £200 per case we only made £100 loss in going to court. It was worth it though, just to see the look on the motorist's face.
CCBC Integration
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)