Independent Appeals Service hit by false evidence allegations

The Independent Appeals Service is the appeals service run by the Independent Parking Committee. It was recently awarded ADR Entity status by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute despite not meeting a number of the statutory requirements for an ADR Entities.

Recently The Prankster asked for members of the public to refer controversial decisions to him, and a disturbing trend has emerged; in almost all cases the motorist has stated that the operator has provided false evidence to the appeals service. In some of these cases the motorist subsequently complained to the IPC and also the lead assessor of the IAS but either no reply was received or no action was taken.

The fact that operators provide false evidence in appeals will come as no surprise to viewers of BBC Watchdog. The BBC sent an undercover reporter to an operator, believed to be PCM UK. One of their employees was caught on camera admitting that they made up stuff for appeals most of the time. The IPC have taken no apparent action, despite the admission of fraud by the operator.

The trend continues to this day. A sampling of the evidence motorists claim is fraudulent contains the following

• Excel Parking claiming to the IAS that the charge is a contractual charge while in court claiming the charge is for breach of contract. This may be fraud against HMRC; claiming a charge is for breach avoids payment of 20% VAT, thus significantly boosting income.
• Vehicle Control Services  claiming to the IAS that the charge is a contractual charge while in the pre-action protocol claiming the charge is for breach of contract. 
• Wardens claiming in a signed witness statement the motorist did not come and ask for assistance when the motorist says they did
• Wardens claiming they did not talk to the motorist when the motorist says they did
• Wardens submitting photographs which do not back up their story and therefore may have been doctored in the same way as in the UK Parking Control scandal
• Vehicle Control Services claiming at airports that motorists passed a large number of signs facing the motorist when Google StreetView shows that the signs are at 90 degrees to the road and therefore cannot be seen while driving

• Vehicle Control Services claiming at airports that current byelaws are not in effect because they are obsolete

A condition of an ADR Entity is that they allow both parties to see and report on the other parties evidence. This is a fundamental condition of fairness. Here is the relevant condition from Schedule 3 of the statute:

7(b) provides a party to a dispute within a reasonable period of time, upon request, with the arguments, evidence, documents and facts put forward by the other party to the dispute, including a statement made, or opinion given, by an expert;
(c) ensures that the parties may, within a reasonable period of time, comment on the
information and documents provided under paragraph (b);

The IAS does not allow the motorist to comment on operator evidence, and is therefore in breach of the statutory requirements for ADR Entities. Here is the statement from their FAQs

the operator is provided with 5 working days to provide written representations and evidence in support of their response to you. You will be notified by email when this has been submitted and the case will then be placed before an adjudicator for a decision to be made. 

Please note, you are not able to respond to these submissions but you can view them by logging into the system

The IAS have stated that for some classes of appeals, decisions will cost the motorist £15 which is non-refundable even if they win, and will be binding on the motorist.

The Prankster considers that any motorist would be barmy to take up such an offer, given that operator's have been accused of routinely submitting false evidence, that the motorist has no right of reply to this and that there appears to be no effective complaints procedure.

John Davies and Will Hurley appear to have created a system by which operators can lie and get away with it, and there is no apparent censure by their trade association, the Independent Parking Committee. This is extremely worrying and The Prankster calls on the DVLA and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute to investigate further, and also to suspend ADR Entity status from the IAS until they meet all the statutory requirements.

The Prankster can confirm that the DVLA have been investigating the IAS since May 2014 but have so far not completed their investigation.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

How the Independent Parking Committee pulled the wool over the DVLA's eyes (2)

A series of documents released under FoI show that the Independent Parking Committee never had any intention of letting keepers appeal. The full documents can be seen by requesting from the DVLA a copy of all documents released under FOIR3618 and make interesting reading.

The draft version of the IPC code of practice had this to say about appealing a notice to driver:

Here is the equivalent section from the notice to keeper section

As is obvious, there was never any intent to allow keepers to appeal. Even if he keeper did manage to appeal, they still needed to name the driver. This is shown by the requirements to appeal to the 'Independent' Appeals Service. Requirement (b) is that a name and address of the driver is provided, even if you are appealing as keeper.

This shows a lack of understanding of the law regarding keeper liability. As the keeper can be held liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no need to name the driver. The legal capabilities of Will Hurley and John Davies must therefore be called into question - either that or their morality. The question' Are you a fool or a knave?' is a perfectly valid one under the circumstances.

Following pressure from the DVLA and consumers, the code of practice was changed. Here is the (rather muddled) requirement for keeper appeals from the Code of Practice 1.3.

The requirement to name the driver at the IAS appeal stage remained, but following pressure from the DVLA this was removed, although the code of practice was not updated. Instead, on appealing the keeper was required to state whether they were the driver at the time, were not the driver at the time or did not want to state whether they were the driver.

Regardless of the keeper's statement, IAS assessors routinely ruled that the keeper was the driver, which of course calls their independence and impartiality into question.

Following the conversion of their status from provisional ATA to ATA the IPC released another code of practice.

Although it appears that keeper's should be allowed the right to appeal, this is not the case. All that is required is confirmation of appeals procedures, and it appears that notification that appeals are not allowed is condoned by the IPC. Here is a typical Notice to Keeper. It informs the keeper that no appeal is allowed as they were out of time.

As these notices are audited by the IPC, it leaves no doubt that this type of action is condoned from the very top.

This can be exploited by bottom-feeding operators. A notice to driver can be put on the windscreen, photographed and then removed. This will ensure not only that the keeper can never appeal but also that any early payment discount has been lost. This is a scam known as ghost ticketing, and a number of IPC operators have been reported to The Prankster as apparently using this scam.

It is therefore an important safeguard that keepers always be allowed to appeal. Indeed, as the right to any discount will have been lost, there is no point in the keeper not taking the parking charge all the way through the appeals system.



Conclusion

It appears that the IPC have successfully bamboozled the DVLA into letting them remove the right to appeal from vehicle keepers.

The Prankster believes that a reputable trade association would not act in this way and calls on the DVLA to remove ATA status from the IPC until they restore the right for keepers to appeal.

The Prankster believes this also shows the IPC cannot be trusted to behave in a fit and proper manner with regards to their code of practice, and therefore backs the call of the BPA for a single industry wide code of practice, maintained by an independent body with members from all interested parties.

As motorists do not have the right to a fair appeal, they should avoid IPC car parks like the plague.

As retailers will suffer from loss of trade, landowners should also avoid using IPC members to manage their car parks.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

BPA Update Code of Practice

The BPA has issued a minor revision to the code of practice, in part to address issues caused by the UK Parking Control scandal.

The changes are as follows.

Clause 6.6 - An additional sentence will be inserted at the end of Clause 6.6 which says: ‘Depending on the nature and severity of the alleged Code breach, we may issue suspended Sanction Points and/or a formal letter of censure’.

This allows the BPA to tailor their response to a breach so that the operator is given a reprieve as long as they do not repeat the offence.

Clauses 7.1 & 7.2 -  The wording for these Clauses will be amended as follows:

7.1 - If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
7.2 - If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

This replaces the previous more detailed requirements
7.2. The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
f whether or not the landowner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges due from drivers charged for unauthorised parking.

NEW CLAUSE 9.4 - In order to outlaw the practice of paying financial incentives to wardens based on the volume of tickets issued by them the following Clause will be introduced;

Effective from 1st October 2015, the practice of offering financial incentives to AOS parking attendants/wardens which relate to the quantity of PCNs issued by them, will be prohibited within  all new employee contracts.

This is an attempt to the kind of sharp practice which occurred in the UK Parking Control scandal. By removing financial incentives from wardens they will not be tempted into issuing bogus tickets in order to meet targets. This still leaves the problem of existing employee contracts; however it may be impractical to change these.

It is noteworthy that the Independent Parking Committee do not have this kind of restriction, so their members will continue to be incentivised if they issue bogus tickets. The Prankster has been informed that Vehicle Control Services, one of the IPC's largest members, use financial incentives. Their wardens are paid £1 a ticket for each of the first 40 tickets issued a week, and £10 per ticket after that.


Clause 13.4 - This Clause will be extended to say ‘If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes’.

This is a welcome change. In the past companies have issued charges for only a few seconds overstay. This will bring grace periods into line with council tickets

Clause 16.5 - This Clause will be removed.

Thus clause stated:

If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid Blue Badge you must not issue it with parking charge notices.

This is a worrying change.

Clause 22.1 - The word ‘challenge’ will be amended to ‘appeal’ throughout all the  Clauses in Section 22.

It is hoped that operators will not use this wording change as an excuse not to issue POPLA codes when a charge is challenged.

NEW CLAUSE 22.21 - This Clause will read as follows  ‘The deadline for payment following a POPLA decision in favour of the Operator should be 28 days.’

This brings payment schedules in line with council charges

NEW CLAUSE 22.12.1 - Within all Appeal Rejection Letters,  and in order to comply with the EU ADR Directive, the following wording should be used;

‘You have now reached the end of our internal appeals  procedure.

[Insert standard operator text to appeal to POPLA, including 28 day time limit for doing so, the POPLA verification code and the POPLA website address]

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.  However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.’

This is to comply with regulation 19.2 of the new ADR statute. The Prankster was not aware that Ombudsman Services had an ADR Entity who could deal with parking appeals, and so will check this out. Ironically, there is an ADR Entity who are approved to deal with parking appeals - the IPC IAS service. The Prankster would strongly advise against using this service. It is in The Prankster's opinion essentially a kangaroo court for the following reasons; it does not meet the statute requirements for a real ADR Entity; operators are allowed to provide false information to the appeals service; the IPC directors ail to take action when evidence of fraud is presented to them; motorists do not get to comment on the operators final evidence, although operators can comment on the motorists; assessors do not appear to have proper legal knowledge regarding parking regulations and consumer protection laws (or are institutionally biased); an improper weighting is placed on evidence - any old rubbish the operator states is routinely believed; however an almost impossibly high bar is placed on motorists evidence.

For an example of a typical result showing poor legal knowledge, incorrect usage of case law, clear bias against the motorist, and a complete ignoring of the actual case raised by the motorist, see here. In The Prankster's opinion no properly legally qualified person would make this ruling and consider it fair and unbiased.

This service cannot be touched with a bargepole.

Conclusion

A number of changes have been made to the code of practice; some beneficial to motorists and some harmful. On balance the addition of a specific grace period and removal of warden incentives should be seen as positive steps; however disabled drivers may disagree.

Entry Signs

The deadline for putting mandatory entrance signs in place has now passed. Parking signs are only required where there is invitation for public to park. No Parking signs are required on permit holders only sites, or sites not set for the general public such as commercial, residential, and educational.

We can now expect the BPA to start auditing this. However they only have limited manpower and so motorists can assist with this. Any BPA car parks without entrance signs can be reported to aos@britishparking.co.uk.

Entry signs are an important protection for motorists. They provide a standardised way for motorists to know if parking restrictions apply, and warn them to look out

The Independent Parking Committee have removed the requirement for entrance signage. This will cause more motorists to fail to notice the requirements and allow their members to issue more charges.

BPA or IPC

The code of practice changes show he BPA are making attempts to be more motorist friendly while the IPC are moving towards allowing their members to line their pockets by issuing more charges. The Prankster therefore advises motorists that where there is a choice a BPA car park should be preferred over an IPC one. Landowners should steer well clear of using IPC members and of course any operator who offers to manage their car park for free; this can only lead to aggressive ticketing and loss of business as customers are driven away.

The Prankster has been informed of at least one landowner threatened with losing a large business parking because the IPC operator continues with an aggressive and inflexible enforcement scheme.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Parliament Schedule Early Day Motion to tackle parking company rogues

Although ParkingEye argued to the Supreme Court that Parliament supported outrageous parking charges and also supported their dubious commercial practice of providing cameras for free and then gouging motorist to make their money, it seems that Parliament do not agree.

An Early Day Motion has been tabled to note Parliament's concern of the increasing number of rogue operators and their behaviour.

That this House is growing increasingly concerned about the operation of private parking operators in town and city centres; notes that the £100 fines issued by these companies are significantly out of proportion to the few minutes that some people may be late in returning to their vehicles and which would take up to 15 hours to pay earning the minimum wage; is concerned about the use of debt collection agencies which set about routinely harassing those in receipt of a fine with increasingly intimidating demands to pay; further notes the new bewildering changes in technology that seem to be confusing many users of these private operations; has concerns about the use of Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency information to track down motorists on behalf of these private sector companies; regrets that companies such as Smart Parking refuse to engage in a meaningful discussion about their operations and arrogantly dismiss those with concerns about their parking arrangements; believes that the regulation of private parking is insufficient and must be urgently reviewed to ensure that private parking companies are more accountable and responsive to the communities they serve; and calls on the Government to bring forward plans to ensure that new regulations are brought forward which are user-focused and stop what is almost a licence to harass.

The Prankster calls on all MPs to support this motion. Blog readers can find and contact their MP via this link:

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

Early Day Motions do not usually end up being debated. The idea is to show support of an issue. Therefore the more MPs who sign up, the better.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

How the Independent Parking Committee conned the DVLA into giving them ATA status

When the IPC originally formed their Code of Practice was quite progressive. The Prankster compared them favourably to to BPA in this blog. No doubt this conrtibuted to the DVLA awarding them provisional ATA status.

Since then the BPA have made large steps to become fairer to the motorist. The IPC on the other hand, did a Jekyll and Hyde as soon as they were awarded full ATA status by the DVLA. Following that date their appeals service has become a joke, serving up institutionally biased results with poor understanding of parking-related and consumer law. Operators are allowed to submit false evidence and the IPC turn a blind eye.

Code of Practice

The IPC's true colours have emerged with the release of the latest version of their code of practice. It is worth comparing point by point with the previous version to show what happens when a rogue ATA is allowed to change its code without input or control from government.

Initial Audit

4.1 Initial compliance upon application for IPC membership is assessed by way of an Initial Audit
which, will be followed by a period of ‘probationary membership’ for 6 months this is
detailed further in Schedule 4.

4.1 Upon application for IPC Membership, compliance will be assessed by way of an Initial
Audit during a period of ‘probationary membership’ for the first 6 months. This is
detailed further in Schedule 4.

The audit no longer takes place before the member joins, but up to six months afterwards. This means the member has up to six months to operate without audited signage contracts and correspondence templates. At least two court cases taken out by IPC members have failed because the operator could not show a valid contract with the landowner was in place.

Investigation of Complaints

4.4 The IPC will investigate and record any complaints against members in order to ensure
compliance.

4.4 The IPC may investigate and record any complaints against members in order to ensure
compliance.

Complaints are not now always investigated. The Prankster has informed the IPC of several of their operators who breach the code of conduct. The IPC has refused to investigate. This can be contrasted with the behaviour of the BPA. When The Prankster informed the BPA that UK PC were forging timestamps the BPA were reluctant to believe their members could do such a thing, but still investigated anyway. The IPC, according to their actions, are happy for their members to get away with whatever dodgy practice they like.

ANPR accuracy

3.3 ANPR equipment must be maintained and calibrated appropriately to ensure accuracy so as
to ensure that keeper data is not applied for without proper grounds for doing so. Where
there are manufacturer’s guidelines for the maintenance of equipment then this should be
followed.

The requirement to have accurate ANPR has been removed.

Sub Contractors

4.3 If you use sub-contractors or self-ticketing operators then you must ensure that they are
familiar with this code and obtain signed confirmation by them to this effect. You must
ensure that such confirmation is made available to the IPC during any audit or upon request.

The requirement for sub contractors to be familiar with the code has been removed.

Data Protection

5.2 Where required to do so you must provide the IPC with any such records in order that we
may monitor compliance with the Code and any applicable laws.
5.3 Failure to provide any such document(s) within 14 days will be treated as an issue of noncompliance under the Sanctions scheme.

The requirement to allow data protection compliance to be checked has been removed.

Internal Appeals

6.1.d) Allow recipients of a parking charge notice the ability to make representations to you
regarding the issue of the charge.

6.1.d) Allow recipients of a parking charge the ability to make representations to
you regarding the issue of the charge.

It is believed this change is so that operators do not have to allow keepers the right to appeal. This is analysed later.

Changes in terms and conditions

9.1 Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist
then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability
where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular
visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. It is suggested that
a grace period of one month is appropriate and that during this period you should identify
vehicles that would have incurred charges under the new system where they wouldn’t have
previously and inform the driver by notice affixed to the vehicle that in future they will incur
a charge. Vehicles that return having previously had notice of these charges can then be
ticketed in the normal way at your discretion. More guidance on signage is found in
Schedule 1.

This protection has been removed.

Warning and court letters

15. Final Warning Letters
15.1 Where the charge remains unpaid and no appeal is lodged you may send a final
warning letter.
15.2 You must make it clear in the final warning what you will do next if payment is not
received and how payment can be made.
15.3 A final warning letter should not be sent until 14 days have passed since the
notification letter.
16. Court Action or Charge Recovery
16.1 When a final warning has been sent you must wait a further 14 days before you take
further action such as debt recovery or court action.

This requirement has been removed

Grace Periods

17.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time in order to park and read any
signs in order that they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on
the site before any enforcement action is taken by you or your agents.

15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so
they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

Enforcement action can begin during the grace period.

Notice to Keeper

6.4 The keeper must be told that the process of appealing within your internal appeals process
and the IAS.

The requirement to allow keepers to be able to appeal has been removed. If a keeper appeals a notice to driver, they get this reply:

Later on, when the notice to keeper arrives, the right to appeal is no longer present.

The right of a keeper to appeal is a fundamental protection. It was a clear condition of government that the motorists should have access as a condition of the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 going live. The Prankster believes that ATA status should be removed from the IPC until the right for keepers to appeal has been restored.

Entrance Signs

Signs must, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site.

Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site.

Entrance signage is no longer mandatory. A large number of IPC members do not bother with entrance signage. Standardised entrance signage is an important part of car park management, alerting motorists that terms and conditions apply and so they must look out for further signs. Doing away with this requirement boosts parking charge numbers and increases revenue for operators.

This is another huge retrograde step by the IPC, and shows their intention is not to provide a true car park management service, but to catch motorists out in order to make more money for their members.

Standard Wording

You should endeavour to use the following standard wording on your entrance signs. You should
include a minimum of one phrase from Group A (but no more than 3). Group A text should be before
and more prominent than the Group B text. The signs must direct motorists to the more detailed
signs which display the full terms and conditions. This is important as it is these terms and conditions
that will provide the legal foundation to any charge.
Group A
Pay and display [free for blue badge holders]
[x minutes/hours] free parking [for customers only]
Pay on exit
Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving
Parking for [business name] customers only
Permit Holders Only
Group B
Charges apply [after this]
Private land
Terms and Conditions Apply
See the notice[s] [in car park] for conditions

This requirement has been removed. The use of standard wording helps motorists.

Text Size

The height of the capital letters in the text from Group A will be dependent on the anticipated
approach speed of traffic. You should have reference to the table below in calculating the text size.
Group B text should be at least 50% of the size of Group A text. All other text should be smaller than
50% of the text from Group A. The name of the site and a welcome message can also be displayed
on the sign but should not detract from the prevalence of the Group A and Group B text.

The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can read all of the Group A and
Group B text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead. Any text on

the sign which is not intended to be read from a moving vehicle can be of a much smaller size.


The size of text on a sign will be determined by a number of factors such as the position of it,
to whom it is aimed and the information that it needs to convey. Text should be of such a size
and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the
motorist in relation to the sign.

The definition of text size has been removed so that members can use whatever size they like. Large numbers of IPC signs have tiny fonts containing onerous terms and conditions. Allowing their members to hide conditions like this boosts revenue at the expense of motorists.

One of the IPC's biggest customers is Excel Parking/Vehicle Control Services whose signs routinely fail these requirements. At one of their biggest money spinners, Liverpool Airport, the font size is 30mm instead of the previously required 120mm. It is of course, unreadable from a moving vehicle.

Upsetting Excel would be a bad move for the IPC so it is a reasonable guess that this change was a result of a request by them.

Signage in the Dark

If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours, the sign itself is not illuminated or
there is not sufficient ambient lighting, it should be made of retro-reflective material meeting BS EN 12899-1:2007 class RA2 or higher (BS EN 12899-6:2012 class P3 or higher). Dark-coloured areas need not be reflective. You need to ensure that all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge. If signs cannot be read then resulting charges that depend upon their content will not be enforceable.

If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are
illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable
during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge.

The requirement to conform to standards has been removed. The pesky condition that unreadable signs cannot be enforced has been removed.

Repeater Signs

You are required to provide a sufficient number of signs on each site commensurate with its size and
other characteristics to ensure that motorists can be under no doubt as to the fact that parking
restrictions exist.

You are required to provide a sufficient number of signs on each site commensurate with its
size and other characteristics to ensure that any parking conditions are adequately brought to
the attention of the motorist.

The requirements for repeater signs have been relaxed.

Other Signs

6) Contain text that is appropriate to the position of the sign and the relative position of the
person who it is aimed at. So, if a sign is at an entrance of a site and the vehicle is likely to be
moving, it must be sufficiently large so as to be clear from within the vehicle having regard
to the likely speed that the vehicle will be travelling at that point.

6) Contain text appropriate to the position of the sign and the relative position of
the person who it is aimed at.

These safeguards have been weakened.

Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions

Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affect the motorist then you
should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and
conditions/charges apply. The signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required.

Where there is any change in the terms and conditions materially affecting the motorist you
may place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and
conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms
do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage
ordinarily required.

The requirement has been weakened.

Sanctions

Using Predatory Tactics 8-12

Using Predatory Tactics 6-12

Sanction Points have been watered down

Audit

Where an operator has more than 60% of their Parking Charge Notices dismissed on appeal within a
rolling 3 month period, the IPC will investigate the operator and their practices to identify any areas
of non-compliance and will report to the parking operator on their findings. The IPC will usually
endeavour to work with the operator in resolving any compliance issues. The IPC may, whether or
not it assists in resolving issues with the operator, invoke compliance measures where appropriate.

Each year the IPC will randomly select 20-50 Parking Charge Notices issued by an operator to check with compliance with the relevant legislation and the Code of Practice.

Where an operator has more than 60% of their parking charges cancelled on appeal to the IAS
within a rolling 3 month period, the IPC may investigate the operator and their practices to
identify any recurring areas of non-compliance and will report to the parking operator on their
findings. The IPC will usually endeavour to work with the operator in resolving any compliance
issues. The IPC may, whether or not it assists in resolving issues with the operator, invoke
compliance measures where appropriate.

The requirements have been weakened.


Parking Charges

However, if the motorist uses the land other than in accordance with the terms and conditions then
they agree to pay a fixed fee by way of damages to the operator. This is based on a genuine preestimate of loss that flows from the breach of contract by acting otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the agreement the motorist entered into when deciding to park.

All parking charges must be reasonable.

However, if the motorist uses the land in breach of the terms and conditions they thereby agree to pay a fixed fee by way of damages to the operator.

All parking charges must have good legal foundation

The requirement to be a genuine preestimate of loss has been removed. Parking charges noi longer need to be reasonable.

Conclusion

It is obvious that every change has been made to the detriment of the motorist and without good reason. This is what happens when the DVLA allows a rogue ATA to have full control of its code of practice. The Prankster therefore backs the BPA's call for a single industry-wide code of practice, maintained by an independent body.

Until the IPC gets its house in order and reverts back to a fair code of practice, restoring at least signage requirements, and the ability for keepers to appeal, the DVLA should suspend its ATA status.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Henry Greenslade files final report. UKPC still not coming clean

The lead assessor of POPLA, Henry Greenslade has filed his last report, which is available on the POPLA website. Although Mr Greenslade and The Prankster have not always seen eye to eye, The Prankster tips his hat to Mr Greenslade one final time for a job well done under very difficult circumstances and for withstanding huge pressures from the operators to change the basis on which POPLA operated.

The Prankster has been given permission to quote from the report and believes one section needs highlighting in its entirety.

During the last month we received complaints and indeed a number of press enquiries about one particular operator. A formal complaint was also made to the ISPA. This involved allegations that parking charge notices had been improperly issued in certain car parks, based on allegations relating to the time stamping of digital images.

Following the formal complaint, and without making any findings whatsoever, I temporarily suspended determination of appeals from that company and asked them to provide me with an explanation. After some days the company indicated that they had checked all pending appeals and there were only five that they wished to discontinue, effectively offering no evidence. In fact, one had been decided, having been allowed the previous month, and one had not been registered. The other three were formally allowed and I directed that appeals could therefore continue.

Unfortunately, within a short space of time it appeared that another appeal we had received was at the same location and, on the face of it, the same issues were present as in the disputed cases. I therefore informed the operator, the BPA, and the ISPA that I would have to again suspend determination of the company’s appeals until I received a further explanation. None has yet been received.

Additionally, as I write this, it is reported that the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Authority (DVLA) have suspended access by the same operator to the vehicle keeper data that the Authority holds. The effect of this is that the operator will not be able to obtain details of the registered keepers of any vehicles which are the subject of parking charge notices that the operator has issued.

It is time for UK Parking Control to come clean and admit the full extent to which the timestamp scandal extends.

The King is dead. Long live the King

There are other important issues mentioned in the report. None of the staff of the current POPLA service will be transferring over. It also appears that the new service may not use the same lawyer based appeals service, which may cause issues in the future. The Prankster will reserve judgment on the quality of decisions until sufficient information is available.

However, it should be mentioned that it is important for motorists to feel confident that any decisions made will be mirrored in a court of law. Otherwise, as POPLA is not binding, the motorist will simply say 'The decision is wrong. See you in court.'

The IPC appeals service the IAS have made this fundamental error. The service has been set up to apparently decide for the parking companies no matter what. The Prankster has seen a large number of fatuous decisions by the IAS 'baristas' and it is interesting to note that when the flaws in the decision are pointed out to the parking company, they crawl back in their hole and apart from sending a few meaningless debt collector letters have so far failed to attempt court action. This is hardly surprising given the quality of decisions; for instance, IAS assessors have frequently failed to understand the requirements of POFA 2012, and have ruled it applies even when the Notice to Keeper is manifestly deficient. The operators are of course more canny, and will know full well their NTKs are not compliant - in many cases because POPLA told them before they defected to the IPC. The IAS also refuses to take into account European Court cases, even though these are binding on lower courts in England and Wales.

A telling fact which underlies the institutional bias of the IAS is the fact that it will not allow appeals where the motorist is guaranteed to win. The IAS will allow appeals in Scotland, but only from the driver. The keeper is not allowed to appeal. However, the parking companies are in many cases pursuing the keeper when they are not the driver, leaving the keeper no avenue for appeal. In Scotland, keeper liability does not apply, so it is a cast iron winning appeal point to truthfully state you were not the driver. The IPC refuse to allow keeper appeals for that reason; however, no Scottish court will find for the parking operator if the defendant truthfully states they were not the driver.

This is equivalent to the IAS trying a murder case and finding the defendant guilty because although the defendant had a cast iron alibi, they could not tell the court who the murderer actually was. Obviously any appeals service run on these lines is not fair or independent. No doubt they will be bringing back ducking stools and witch trials next.

Suspended Cases

Another issue is the large number of cases which are currently suspended until the result of the ParkingEye v Beavis case from the Supreme Court. The cases are held over until November 1st. They will not now be decided on by the old POPLA team, as they will all have departed. The new POPLA service will also not be deciding on these cases. These cases will therefore be left in limbo until the BPA decide what to do with them.

Signage

Mr Greenslade raises the issue that signage is a common theme. While POPLA correctly considers signage must be visible to the motorist this is not the view of the IAS. In the IAS view, any signage at all is considered sufficient, no matter how inaccessible to the motorist, no matter whether different signs are present giving conflicting terms, and no matter whether signs contain contradictions such as forbidding all parking, and then offering parking under contractual terms.

The Prankster takes the view that if the parking company want to charge a large amount of money for infringing conditions, the signage should be bang in your face so the motorist is absolutely aware of the conditions of parking.Onerous terms should be in the largest font on the sign, and not hidden away in small print.

Hospitals

Mr Greenslade raises concerns about charges in hospitals. The Prankster will blog substantially about this in the near future.

Finally

The Prankster also tips his hat to the outgoing POPLA assessors and administration staff. We didn't always agree. But we mostly did.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

PS Who was the mystery blogger?

Civil Enforcement Limited Criminal Case proceeds in Aberdeen. Threatening letters continue.

The next hearing of the CEL criminal case is scheduled for Tuesday 29th September at Aberdeen Sherriff Court

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-rolls/court-roll?id=b3dfeda6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

The case is number 26, and the court number is 3.

This will be most likely another short hearing. The actual case is due to be heard over two days in the new year.

Any observers can report back to The Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com

The court action does not seem to have stopped Civil Enforcement Limited sending out threatening letters to keepers in Scotland, as per this thread on pepipoo regarding an incident at Irvine.

QDR Recoveries is a trading name of QDR Solicitors Limited, who are a wholly owned subsidiary of Wright Hassall LLP. Aberdeen Trading Standards might therefore be interested in adding Wright Hassall et al to the list of defendants.

Wright Hassall are well known for threatening litigation on behalf of their client ZZPS Ltd. However, ZZPS Ltd are just a debt collector and have not been assigned the debt by Civil Enforcement Limited. It is no therefore clear what right Wright Hassall have to instigate any claim or to transfer to their 'legal partner'.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster