Author Topic: What’s Happening with ISPA?  (Read 6131 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 662
What’s Happening with ISPA?
« on: 18 September, 2016, 06:03:30 PM »
A newly registered poster on MoneySavingExpert posted on Saturday [17th June] that Nicola Mullany, the Chair of ISPA, the Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals on Private Land, has resigned.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5526954

Parking Cowboys says that the whole Board has ceased to operate.  It produces a statement which apparently appeared on the ISPA website but is no longer there.

It is with great regret that the ISPA board is announcing that a decision was taken at an emergency meeting of ISPA on 13 September 2016 that the board would cease its work on 23 September 2016.

The board did not take this decision lightly as it feels since it was formed in February 2014 it has done some very good work to help to ensure the independence and effectiveness of the appeal service known as PoPLA. It has done this despite having none of the formal powers oversight bodies would normally expect to have, operating on a limited budget and working in a climate of uncertainty which meant it was never able to be sure how long it would be funded.

In recent months, however, the board has faced a number of challenges arising out of its lack of powers and its uncertain existence. The board took the view that these challenges were so great that it could not continue to operate and should be wound up.

ISPA has continued to lobby government to put in place an adequately funded body with legal powers of oversight. ISPA did not want to do anything that would make such a body’s establishment less likely but, in the end, concluded it would not be fair to motorists, consumers and other stakeholders to continue when it could not carry out some of its core duties.

The board wishes to thank all those stakeholders who have contributed to the positive work it has undertaken in the past and who have supported its achievements.

ISPA Board September 2016


http://ispa.co.uk/userfiles/files/ISPA%20Notice%20of%20Board%20decision%20to%20cease%20operating.pdf

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 662
ISPA and Wright Hassall PoPLA
« Reply #1 on: 18 September, 2016, 07:15:34 PM »
Wright Hassall, a firm of solicitors who have a major source of income through chasing alleged parking debts on behalf of BPA Ltd member Private Parking Companies, were contracted by the BPA Ltd to independently consider the 3500 outstanding “Beavis” appeals left outstanding by London Councils.

Despite the ISPA website being clear that:

In particular the Board will:…
•   Approve the appointment of future Service Providers…

•   Develop a clear process to address concerns and complaints about the Service (but not individual cases)


http://ispa.co.uk/about

In January, the BPA said:

Following intervention by the Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals (ISPA), the BPA has re-considered its previous position regarding 3,500 POPLA appeals that were put on hold until the ParkingEye vs Beavis Supreme Court case judgment.
A new and independent service provider will now consider these appeals in their entirety, not purely on the basis of genuine pre-estimate of loss; additionally ISPA has appointed two new auditors to oversee the work to ensure judicial independence is maintained.
Chief Executive Patrick Troy says “We have considered carefully the new evidence drawn to our attention by ISPA, which was established by the BPA to oversee the independence of POPLA; this new evidence has caused us to look at this issue again and to revise the way in which these adjourned cases will be considered. This must be the best outcome for motorists who can be confident that they will get a complete, fair and independent review of their Appeal following the Supreme Courts’ decision which confirms that the current charging level is lawful and reasonable, and motorists parking on private land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions.
“Additionally this proves the importance of having a truly independent body overseeing the activities of POPLA.”


http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/bpa-acts-to-reconsider-popla-appeals-following-independent-review

In April, ISPA announced that:
ISPA statement on appointment of Wright Hassall to operate PoPLA for adjourned cases

It has recently been confirmed that Wright Hassall Solicitors has been appointed by BPA to deal with the parking appeals which were adjourned by London Councils awaiting the outcome of Parking Eye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 87.

The role of the ISPA Board is to independently oversee the decision making process to ensure that it is fair and independent. ISPA is not responsible for the operation of the appeals scheme and is therefore not involved in, or responsible for, the appointment of the appeal service provider.

ISPA acknowledges that the BPA and Wright Hassall Solicitors have worked together to try to establish an appeals system that is fair and independent of other work conducted by Wright Hassall Solicitors, including the enforcement of unpaid Parking Charge Notices.

Wright Hassall Solicitors have assured ISPA and the BPA that they take seriously concerns regarding their independence in providing this appeals service, and are putting in place substantial measures to mitigate these concerns, including issues around conflict of interest. Wright Hassall Solicitors are regulated by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and are therefore bound by the Code of Conduct set by that regulator which includes the proper handling of conflicts of interest.

Nevertheless, the ISPA Board remain concerned about the potential for the public to perceive bias in this process given the work conducted by Wright Hassall Solicitors in their wider business.

ISPA Independent Assessors have already visited Wright Hassall Solicitors and undertaken an initial assessment of the systems and processes proposed to consider these appeals, with particular emphasis on proposals to mitigate any conflict of interest. The ISPA Board has commissioned a further series of early visits to independently audit appeal decisions, and will maintain audit oversight of the process and decision making throughout the term of this contract.


http://ispa.co.uk/userfiles/files/ISPA%20Statement%20regarding%20the%20appointment%20of%20Wright%20Hassall.pdf


Since then, Wright Hassall PoPLA has delivered many anonymous identical standard decisions as follows:
Dear Sir/Madam
Car Park Operator
Appellant xxx xxxx
Appeal Verification Code (“the Appeal”) xxxxxxxxxx
Parking Charge Reference Number xxxxxxx
Wright Hassall Reference POPLA Appeal Outcome: Rejected
We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.
We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to reject the Appeal on this occasion. To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) will not be cancelled.
Reasons for dismissing the Appeal
• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.
• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the signage at the car park is not adequate and that they were unaware that they had entered into a contract by remaining at the location. Upon reviewing the evidence provided by both parties we contend that the signage is adequate and does comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.
• The Appellant has requested evidence that the Car Park Operator has a legal right to manage the site. We are in receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator to satisfy us that the Car Park Operator does have a legal right to manage parking at this location and to issue Parking Charge Notices. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.
[• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the Car Park Operator has failed to prove that the Appellant left the site, in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the car park. We are receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator in respect of this, namely a signed and dated witness statement confirming that the Appellant was seen parking their vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.]
To the Appellant
To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice will not be cancelled.
To the Car Park Operator
As the Appeal has been rejected, you must allow the Appellant 28 days to make payment. If payment is not forthcoming, you may take further action to recover the PCN.
This is the final decision in this Appeal. We are not able to respond to any future correspondence from either party, nor are we able to provide any information to either party over the telephone.
Yours faithfully
WRIGHT HASSALL LLP


However, by August IPSA had changed its view and washed its hands of Wright Hassall PoPLA.

PoPLA Complaints being administered by Wright Hassall
ISPA is unable at present to look into complaints regarding Wright Hassall's administration of PoPLA.
ISPA does not have a direct arrangement with Wright Hassall. The appeals process is under a contract between Wright Hassall and the BPA, so ISPA does not have the powers to ensure it can carry out investigations and audits of cases dealt with by PoPLA operators.
ISPA continues to lobby for statutory regulation of this sector.
ISPA Board August 2016


•   So much for “develop[ing] a clear process to address concerns and complaints about the Service
« Last Edit: 18 September, 2016, 07:27:16 PM by BGB »

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
Re: What’s Happening with ISPA?
« Reply #2 on: 19 September, 2016, 09:29:09 AM »
To be honest, I could never see how ISPA could ever be truly "independent" as it had to rely on funding from the BPA, who could hardly be described as "neutral" in Parking issues - no doubt they were 'leant on' by their members ("do something about them or we'll go to the IPC" or similar) to bring ISPA, and by extension, PoPLA, into line. It would appear that IPSA is not willing to tolerate this, so they have done the honourable thing and resigned.
IMHO, there needs to be a truly independent body established by the Government, with proper legal powers to order PPCs to comply with it's instructions. Unfortunately, this would require funding which the Government is unlikely to do using Taxpayers money, so how would such a body be paid for without compromising it's independence? As the learn'd Mr Eagle would say "It's all about the money!"
« Last Edit: 19 September, 2016, 09:37:39 AM by DastardlyDick »

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: What’s Happening with ISPA?
« Reply #3 on: 19 September, 2016, 11:36:56 AM »
It seems the BPA Ltd have joined the "race to the bottom".
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: What’s Happening with ISPA?
« Reply #4 on: 20 September, 2016, 03:25:25 PM »
Well the link to the ISPA notice that was taken down has now reappeared ( http://ispa.co.uk/userfiles/files/ISPA%20Notice%20of%20Board%20decision%20to%20cease%20operating.pdf ) together with an announcement by the BPA Ltd (don't forget the Ltd) that they are looking to replace only Nicola Mullaney, this being despite the fact that the notice said that all of the board were having it away on their toes.

Just to recap, this is how the relationship between the BPA Ltd, Nicola Mullaney, the ISPA board and the ISPA website worked.

1) Nicola Mullaney received a salary of £30k from the BPA Ltd, and the office where she conducted ISPA business was inside the BPA Ltd's offices.

2) The board member's responsibilities were to turn up at any board meetings that were convened by Nicola Mullaney whenever the meagre resources given to them by the BPA Ltd allowed them to. The board members did not receive a salary and could only claim expenses directly related to their ISPA work.

3) The BPA Ltd host, own and have full control over what is and is not hosted on the ISPA website.

Makes you wonder who took the notice down in the first place don't it? And of course it's pure coincidence that it reappeared at the same time as the BPA Ltd's statement concerning the replacement of Nicola Mullaney.


WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 662
And Then There Were Three...
« Reply #5 on: 07 October, 2016, 09:33:42 PM »
... members of the ISPA Board.

The ISPA website shows only three members.

http://ispa.co.uk/board

Deputy Chair Saadiya Ahmad is no longer listed as a board member.



 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player