Author Topic: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking  (Read 4548 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
In a speech to British Parking Association Independent Appeals Service Working Group on 1 February 2012 (copy attached), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport Mr Norman Baker MP stated (see page 2):

First some fundamentals. The appeals body:

• must be, and be seen to be, completely independent;


In a letter to the BPA Ltd dated 7th December 2015 from Ms Nicola Mullany, Chair of ISPA (Indendependent Scrutiny for Parking Appeals) she states:

ISPA feels, however, that this decision would severely weaken the credibility of PoPLA as we don't believe a scheme - other than one controlled by the operators - would come to such a decision

Mr Patrick Troy replied to Ms Mullaney on 14th December 2015 (copy attached). In her reply on 16th December 2015 (copy attached) Ms Mullaney states:

I am bitterly disappointed that much of the good work done by the BPA and ISPA may be undone by the BPA's decision on these adjourned cases. I do not believe any organisation other than one controlled by the operators could have come to this decision.

She goes on to state:

...the BPA's decision is flawed because its proposal means justice will not be seen to have been done.

All 3 letters referred to above have been published on ISPA's website here: http://ispa.co.uk/


Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #1 on: 02 January, 2016, 03:36:39 PM »
M'learned Prankster has blogged an excellent analysis on this subject,

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/british-parking-association-deny-proper.html

……and the story has now been picked up by the press,

Fury as parking fine appeals body which is funded by the industry arbitrarily decides 3,500 motorists' cases will NOT be fully heard

  • 3,500 appeals against parking tickets were delayed by Supreme Court case
  • But it has now emerged that the cases can no longer be considered by official appeals body because of blunder by bosses
  • Instead, the motorists will have their appeals decided in a cursory ruling
  • Watchdog warns that 'justice will not be seen to be done' by drivers

Thousands of motorists have lost the right to appeal against their parking tickets following a controversial decision by the private parking operators who control the appeal system.
Around 3,500 appeals which were put on hold pending the result of a landmark court case will never be heard in full, it has emerged.
Instead, the drivers who claim they were wrongly fined by private parking firms will have their cases considered more briefly, and the only argument they will be allowed to use is that the size of their fine was disproportionate.
The parking watchdog has slammed the decision, saying it would 'weaken the credibility' of the appeals system and accusing companies of tilting the balance against drivers.

The blunder is linked to the Supreme Court case of motorist Barry Beavis, a chip shop owner who contested an £85 fine he received from a parking firm in Chelmsford, Essex.


Campaign: Motorist Barry Beavis recently lost his Supreme Court appeal against the £85 fine handed out by a private parking company


Mr Beavis argued that the size of the fine was out of proportion to the loss suffered by the company due to his actions after he overstayed his allotted time by 56 minutes.
While court proceedings were ongoing, the appeals body - Parking on Private Land Appeals (Popla) - told 3,500 other drivers who were contesting their fines on similar grounds that their cases would be delayed until after Mr Beavis heard his fate.
But after he lost his case last month, it emerged that the British Parking Association, which controls Popla, had transferred the running of the appeals to a new sub-contractor without including the 3,500 files which were put on hold.
Now the industry bosses have told motorists that their appeals will finally be considered - but they will not be able to plead their case in full.
Instead, the only criterion which will be considered will be whether or not the size of the fine handed out was appropriate.
This means that drivers who also hope to rely on other factors - such as misleading signage or ambiguous road markings - will not have a chance to make their arguments.
The independent parking watchdog, Ispa, attacked the BPA's decision to exclude thousands of drivers from the appeals process.
Chairman Nicola Mullany wrote in a letter that 'some of these appeals, if they were considered in full, would be upheld', adding that 'justice will not be seen to have been done' if motorists cannot take part in a full appeal.
She concluded: 'This decision would severely weaken the credibility of Popla as we don't believe a scheme - other than one controlled by the operators - would come to such a decision.'
Patrick Troy, chief executive of the BPA, insisted that none of the 3,500 drivers had a realistic chance of winning their appeals on any grounds other than the size of the fine being disproportionate.
He also claimed that the Supreme Court's 'clear and unambiguous decision' in Mr Beavis' case meant that few of the motorists were likely to have their fines overturned in any case.
But Ms Mullany replied: 'This is precisely why operators shouldn't be able to choose a scheme to provide the appeal service.'
Anyone who loses an appeal at Popla might be able to take formal legal action, but only at great expense and with a doubtful chance of success.
Private parking firms have become notorious in recent years for imposing fines as large as £100 on motorists who stay in car parks just a few minutes longer than they are supposed to.
However, Mr Beavis' Supreme Court defeat means that companies are free to levy large fines without having to justify themselves in court.

--------------------------

I am currently helping one of Rupert-the-bare-faced-liar-Williams' victims on one of those cases. Here is an image of the area where the vehicle was parked,



The main body of my initial appeal centred around insufficient signage with which to form a contract, no planning permission for any signage, no keeper liability due to inadequate NTK and few other little snippets. Despite this, Trouser fire has decreed that anyone receiving a sPeCulative iNvoice must be guilty as hell and should not be entitled to an independent appeal. By all accounts, M'learned Prankster has quite a large number of similar cases. It has not been revealed whether or not Will Hurley is to be paid any royalty consideration for use of his kangaroo court idea.
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
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #2 on: 03 February, 2016, 02:27:08 PM »
Here we witness Trouserfire eating a huge shit sandwich with a side order of humble pie. :pmsl:

By the way, can you spot Trouserfire's howler? It's a cracker. <Mutley>


========================================

Nicola Mullaney
Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals on Private Land
27 January 2106

Dear Nicola

Adjourned cases

Thank you again for your letter dated 16 December 2015. As you know, the BPA has since then been investigating - as far as it is able - the further statements in your letter about ISPA's understanding of decisions made by POPLA in relation to cases adjourned pending the Supreme Court decision in Beavis -v- Parking Eye.

I am pleased to say that in light of that further information, the BPA board has agreed to instruct the service provider appointed to consider these cases to do the following:

1. ensure that the entire cases are reheard rather than just the issue relating to the proportionality of the charge and

2. to invite both parties to submit any additional evidence to enable the service provider to determine an outcome

I am grateful for your offer for ISPA to review a selection of cases. In view of this new position, it would be most helpful if ISPA could oversee the judicial aspects of the service in the same way it does for normal POPLA activity. In this way all parties to appeals can be confident that proper process has been followed to arrive at a fair and independent decision.

Thank you again for clarifying your understanding of decisions made by the Lead Adjudicator. While I have little doubt that the experience we have had here is unique, the role of ISPA in ensuring that POPLA's independence is protected has been proved and demonstrates the importance of independent oversight of appeals services.

I have copied this letter to DCLG and DVLA and placed a copy on our website to mirror your actions.

Yours sincerely

Patrick Troy

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/20160127_PT_letter_to_Nicola_Mullany,_ISPA_re_adjourned_cases.pdf
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #3 on: 03 February, 2016, 03:26:26 PM »
By the way, can you spot Trouserfire's howler?

Judicialololol  :rotfl:       <busted>      <Biglaugh>      <served>
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 2b1ask1

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 217
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #4 on: 03 February, 2016, 05:57:02 PM »
Eeermmm....

I was looking more at the statement: 'the importance of independent oversight of appeals services.' More of an admission really...!
Willing to do my bit...

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #5 on: 03 February, 2016, 07:58:53 PM »
By the way, can you spot Trouserfire's howler?

Judicialololol  :rotfl:       <busted>      <Biglaugh>      <served>

No. It's better than that.  ;)
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #6 on: 03 February, 2016, 07:59:57 PM »
Eeermmm....

I was looking more at the statement: 'the importance of independent oversight of appeals services.' More of an admission really...!

Or that.  ;D
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #7 on: 03 February, 2016, 08:29:56 PM »
Bugger! I thought I had it. Is it, in fact, "the BPA(ahem, Ltd) has since then been investigating(ahem, in the Clouseau sense)".  :rotfl:

No, it's probably not that easy. So if it's not the equally obvious misspelling of Trouserfire, I'm at a loss M'learned Eagle.  <Surrender>
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
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #8 on: 03 February, 2016, 08:34:38 PM »
Bugger! I thought I had it. Is it, in fact, "the BPA(ahem, Ltd) has since then been investigating(ahem, in the Clouseau sense)".  :rotfl:

No, it's probably not that easy. So if it's not the equally obvious misspelling of Trouserfire, I'm at a loss M'learned Eagle.  <Surrender>

Here's a clue. It's not a mispelling of Trouserfire. It's a type of misspelling of POPLA. ;D
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline scalyback

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 325
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #9 on: 03 February, 2016, 09:14:12 PM »
would it be...

"While I have little doubt that the experience we have had here is unique" X 3,500 ?

Offline newham sux

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #10 on: 03 February, 2016, 09:58:49 PM »

Thank you again for your letter dated 16 December 2015. As you know, the BPA has since then been investigating - as far as it is able - the further statements in your letter about ISPA's understanding of decisions made by POPLA in relation to cases adjourned pending the Supreme Court decision in Beavis -v- Parking Eye.

I am pleased to say that in light of that further information, the BPA board has agreed to instruct the service provider appointed to consider these cases to do the following:

1. ensure that the entire cases are reheard rather than just the issue relating to the proportionality of the charge and

2. to invite both parties to submit any additional evidence to enable the service provider to determine an outcome

I am grateful for your offer for ISPA to review a selection of cases. In view of this new position, it would be most helpful if ISPA could oversee the judicial aspects of the service in the same way it does for normal POPLA activity. In this way all parties to appeals can be confident that proper process has been followed to arrive at a fair and independent decision.

Thank you again for clarifying your understanding of decisions made by the Lead Adjudicator. While I have little doubt that the experience we have had here is unique, the role of ISPA in ensuring that POPLA's independence is protected has been proved and demonstrates the importance of independent oversight of appeals services.

I have copied this letter to DCLG and DVLA and placed a copy on our website to mirror your actions.

No such thing was offered, ISPA offered to pay the cost for a few sample reviews (in case the POPLA coudn't afford it) not do POPLAs, BPA's work for them.

Cheeky B**std, do yer own fkin werk.


it would be most helpful if ISPA could oversee the judicial aspects of the service in the same way it does for normal POPLA activity. In this way all parties to appeals can be confident that proper process has been followed to arrive at a fair and independent decision.

And that^^^
« Last Edit: 03 February, 2016, 10:00:55 PM by newham sux »

Offline Coco

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
  • Northampton
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #11 on: 04 February, 2016, 12:01:52 AM »
Parking Appeals on Private Land

Nice one Patrick! And just how many of these appeals are heard on private land?

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: BPA Ltd reported to govt by Scrutiny Board for breaching undertaking
« Reply #12 on: 04 February, 2016, 10:41:06 AM »
Parking Appeals on Private Land

Nice one Patrick! And just how many of these appeals are heard on private land?

BINGO!

POPLA has apparently been renamed PAOPL by the BPA Ltd's CEO. Nice one Paddy. :rotfl:
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player