Author Topic: Is this the beginning of the end of the parking road for POPLA and the BPA Ltd?  (Read 8229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
ISPA Independent Scrutiny Board
                        for
Parking on Private Land

Nick
Randle
OBE
Director
nick.randle@ispa.co.uk

To Patrick Troy
Chief Executive
British Parking Association
8th January 2015

Dear Patrick,

Open Letter on the Operation of the Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals on Private Land

The Independent Scrutiny Board (ISPA) have asked me to write to you following your email of 14th November 2014 which was discussed at the December meeting of the board.

In  your email you informed us that the Operational Services Board (OSB) of the BPA has not approved the Independent Scrutiny Board’s request for an increased budget. From your response we understand this to be primarily for external reasons and not because the OSB felt that the funding request was invalid. Clearly this places the board in a difficult position, as you acknowledge, and without sufficient funding or clear support for its remit from the BPA its viability must be open to question.

In this letter we would wish to
• Confirm our support for the concept of an independent board;
• Summarise what we believe we have achieved with the resources available and what we have not been able to achieve due to resource and remit constraints;
• Recognise the positive intentions of the BPA and the difficult position you now find yourselves in;
• Express our view that the potential for forum shopping is the single biggest threat to an independent service; and
• Confirm that our chair, Nicola Mullany will attend the OSB meeting on 29th January to discuss the direction for the future operation of the board.

Board Concept

Having been in existence for nearly a year the ISPA Board believes that the concept of an independent appeals service and an independent scrutiny board is a valid model for fairly delivering an appeals service for parking tickets on private land. indeed it is in line with the structures endorsed by the British and Irish Ombudsman Association. The original proposal was for the Board to operate independently of all stakeholders and to have a clear remit to oversee the POPLA operation and to direct change where this was seen to be necessary. Due primarily to resource constraints the remit has been considerably reduced and the de facto position is that the board now has a scrutiny role with no specific powers to direct change where it believes this to be appropriate. The terms of reference for the board have not been fully agreed between the BPA and the Board itself and there is not yet an agreed Memorandum of Understanding between us. This is because the funding of the board is proving problematic and it has also not been possible to establish a clear definition of the relationship between the Board and POPLA.

Achievements of the board to date and impact of constraints upon it.

At its first meeting on 28th February 2014 the Board recognised that it had insufficient resources to discharge the remit that  had been envisaged. It concluded therefore that it should proceed as far as possible within the budget provided through prioritising more urgent activity and taking a narrow interpretation of its role while attempting to establish a proper resource base through discussion with yourselves.

The Board believes that it has acted diligently to fulfil the key principles of its remit and that despite the constraints it has already had an impact in ensuring the independence and the perception of independence of POPLA.

During the first ten months of operation the Board has met on four occasions and among other things has achieved the following:-­

• Developed and adopted a process for handling complaints.
• Considered and taken decisions in respect of fourteen core complaints raised through approximately forty separate pieces of correspondence. We believe that the board’s approach has helped to significantly reduce the temperature in the debate about POPLA service.
• Reviewed and adopted temporary terms of reference.
• Undertaken discussions with BPA on a Memorandum of Understanding
• Considered its legal structure and set an objective to become a Community Interest Company.
• Developed a working budget within the overall constraints of the amount allocated.
• Agreed financial policies and agreed the Chair’s and Director’s contracts.
• Defined basic governance structures and established a programme of review and development of board governance using best practice.
• Established a communications plan, a scrutiny board house style and developed a board website
• Established a dialogue with the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and the Service manager to progress issues.
• Held discussions with the Chief Executive of the BPA on a number of matters.
• Reviewed the progress of the POPLA service though its key performance indicators.
• Reviewed arrangements for managing changes of membership between accredited operator schemes.
• Held meetings with some key stakeholders including the Department for Transport.
• Scrutinised the procurement process for the tender to operate the appeals service.
• Established a plan to survey all stakeholders on their perception of POPLA independence.

The resource constraints that exist have meant that the Board has been forced to be more reactive than pro-­active. The need to set up the ISPA Board from scratch with no set up resources has meant that development of pro-­active plans has been hindered. Some of the areas that we have been unable to address are;-
• Interacting with stakeholders to the extent that we believe to be necessary. The board would have wished to hold a stakeholder meeting to establish a dialogue with stakeholders on issues affecting POPLA independence.
• Develop a pro-­active work plan to systematically review the POPLA process and undertake a series of sampling studies to ensure that decisions are consistent, coherent and fair. The board has been able to plan one such activity, which will take place in the first quarter, but this should really be an on going programme.
• Participate fully, as intended, in the process for letting the POPLA contract for the coming period.
• Implement all of the recommendations we have made to POPLA for improvements to its process e.g. publishing its decisions.
• Commission professional advice on matters coming before the board.
• Complete all the set up tasks that should ideally have been in place when the board started work.
      o Fully developing and documenting the board’s governance processes
      o Concluding an MOU with the BPA and having clear Terms of Reference, including a precise definition of
         its relationship with POPLA
      o Establishing the board as a separate legal entity.

Issues for the BPA and the potential problems of “Forum Shopping” by operators

The ISPA Board recognises that the BPA has acted in good faith in establishing POPLA and the Independent Scrutiny Board, as it had been encouraged to do by Government. While the Board has actively pursued a proper resourcing solution to discharge its remit it is aware of the cost pressures facing the BPA particularly since government appears to have endorsed the establishment of a second Approved Operator Scheme that seems to operate with significantly fewer safeguards for the independence of the service. This has led to a potential for ‘forum shopping“ where operators might seek to use an appeals service that provides a favourable outcome at low cost.

The British and Irish Ombudsman Association has clearly stated that such a situation is not best practice. In its guidance on development of appeals and ombudsman schemes it has stated the following;

“If there are ‘competing’ ombudsmen in a particular sector, this can create confusion for the public – who are unsure which business is covered by which ombudsman scheme. And public confidence is less where it is the business that has the choice of which ombudsman scheme to use.

This raises the appearance, and the risk, of businesses attempting to exercise an influence over the ombudsman schemes –  by favouring the one that they like best and/or by threatening to undermine one scheme financially by threatening to move to another.

For these reasons, we do not favour the ‘competitive’ model if it is the business that is able to choose. The ‘competitive’ model is said to reduce costs, but costs can be adequately controlled by transparency and regulatory scrutiny.”


The Board agrees with this view and believes that the potential for “forum shopping” among appeals services in private parking is the single biggest threat to the independence of those services.

We have considered potential alternative funding approaches which could provide a properly resourced and fully independent scrutiny board operating across all approved operator schemes. We believe a viable alternative might be for the board to be funded by a levy on every release of information made by the DVLA to parking operators under the reasonable cause provisions. Depending on the board’s ultimate remit, we believe that such a levy could be as little as 2 pence per release where the current fee payable is £2.50. We have raised this idea with the Department for Transport who indicated that this might also be discussed directly with the DVLA.

Summary

The ISPA Board acknowledges the challenges described both here and in your email of 14th November. Board Chair Nicola Mullany will attend the OSB meeting on 29th January to discuss the way forward with you. The ISPA Board believes that the correct approach is to continue to seek a stable regulatory and financial solution that will ensure that the private parking sector is served by credible and robust appeals services that command the confidence of the public, the sector stakeholders and government alike.

Yours sincerely


Nick Randle OBE
Director
Independent Scrutiny Board For Parking Appeals on Private Land

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Here is a link to the website referred to in the letter. Makes interesting reading. ;)



http://ispa.co.uk/board/complaint-findings
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Bazster

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 74
It seems that the Independent Scrutiny Board is as partial to fudge as the DVLA, the BPA and London Councils.

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Let us imagine a fantasy future where flying unicorns fart rainbows over the open spaces of Haywards Heath, PPI weasels stop ringing me and POPLA (the bastard love child of the BPA Ltd and London Councils) offers a completely fair and neutral arbitration service. Weasels being weasels, the parking weasels will simply use the IPC Ltd kangaroo court. It's cheaper and less likely to favour the motorist. They're not called weasels for nothing.

But wait, there's more. What's to stop an even more unscrupulous underbelly of the parking industry forming a third ATA, a fourth, a fifth and so on. Campaigners from all around were deeply disappointed by the BPA Ltd and POPLA but the IPC Ltd have taken skullduggery to a whole new (sub) level. Parking weasels like to explore the limits of what's possible and see how far boundaries can be stretched.

I'm not sure we've seen the worst of what this rotten industry has to offer just yet.

 <Swearyangry>
« Last Edit: 13 January, 2015, 10:49:52 AM by Ewan Hoosami »
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator

I'm not sure we've seen the worst of what this rotten industry has to offer just yet.

 <Swearyangry>

And you can rest assured that the wea$els have not seen the worst that the NoToMob has to offer.

We have a cunning plan... ;)
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
The Bald Eagle is plotting again.   <baldeagleplotting>

I think I can see where this is going……………………

Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Open letter on the operation of the Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals on Private Land
25 March 2015


Nick Randle OBE

Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals on Private Land

19th March 2015

Dear Nick,

Open letter on the operation of the Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals on Private Land

Thank you for your letter dated 8th January 2015.

As you know, since that time we have had much discussion on the issues raised in your letter culminating in Nicola Mullany’s attendance at the Operational Services Board recently.

The outcome of those discussions is to agree Terms of Reference and a Memorandum of Understanding between our respective bodies which both protects the full independence of the Board so that it can continue its good work and also to make a financial agreement between the BPA and ISPA so that it may continue to progress its primary functions.

The BPA is very pleased that ISPA has been able to publish an annual report and launch a website which gives much greater transparency to motorists, operators and landowners in outlining its work to date and its functions.

I am pleased to confirm that we have now appointed The Ombudsman Services to succeed London Councils as the service provider for POPLA from 1st October 2015. ISPA will continue to scrutinise the POPLA service soon to be provided by The Ombudsman Services to ensure that the service they deliver continues to be independent and be seen to be independent.

The BPA shares your concern about the proliferation of appeals services in the sector which is not good for the motorist and consumer. We would prefer to see a standard setting body established by Government which would drive a single code of practice for the sector and additionally for an independent scrutiny board to be established by Government which would drive a single appeals service in the interests of the consumer. The responsibility for the private parking sector, in England has transferred in Government from the Department for Transport to the Department for Communities and Local Government and we are liaising with Ministers at the Communities and Local Government department to put the case for this solution.

The BPA completely agrees that there is a need to avoid what you have called “forum shopping” to ensure that landowner, operator and motorist can enjoy a level playing field together with rising standards and a single appeals service.

Yours sincerely

Patrick Troy

Chief Executive

http://britishparking.co.uk/News/open-letter-on-the-operation-of-the-independent-scrutiny-board-for-parking-appeals-on-private-land

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
On the front page of POPLA there is a link to an ISPA user survey. They've avoided completely pointless and loaded 'Great British Parking Poll' style questions that reveal nothing of any value to anyone. Instead, they've cut straight to the chase with proper fact finding questions. The two really significant ones are,

1) Do you believe that POPLA provides an effective process for determining parking appeals? (79.3% say no)

2) Do you believe that POPLA acts in a fair and unbiased way in reaching it's decisions on parking appeals? (72.4% say no)

As well as the Yes/No buttons, there are boxes in which you can type your reasons for answering the way you have (Parking Prankster will be very busy for the foreseeable).

At the end you will see the percentage results so far but then they will disappear. See my illuminating screen grab below.
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
I just did the survey. Current figures are:

1) Do you believe that POPLA provides an effective process for determining parking appeals? (81.3% say no. 6.3% say yes. 12.5% don't know)

2) Do you believe that POPLA acts in a fair and unbiased way in reaching it's decisions on parking appeals? (75% say no. 9.4% say yes. 15.6% don't know)

You can do the survey here:

http://www.popla.org.uk/
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline 2b1ask1

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 217
Done;

6.1
9.1

Ooops; not looking too good is it!
Willing to do my bit...

Offline scalyback

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 325
I imagine that with all the typing that trouser fire has been doing, trying to redress the balance, that he should also be named 'Finger fire', and awarded the golden 'fleecer' trouser pocket fire extinguisher.

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 662
So over a year has passed since this survey.  I wonder what happened to the results.

Offline scalyback

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 325
Maybe trousy got them to close to himself and they are now just ash?

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player