What the BPA has to say about POPLA

[BankFodder]

As we approach the first 4 months of POPLA - the service set up for appeals against tickets issued on private land - many questions have been asked about the true independence of this system. How can it be if the British Parking Association were involved in setting it up in the first place?

In 2012, the BPA was asked by Government to establish an opportunity for motorists to seek independent adjudication, where they feel that they have been incorrectly or unfairly issued with a parking charge notice on private land.

Government laid out a number of principles which the BPA were expected to adhere to in establishing such a service – these included that the service should be free to the motorist, that the decisions should be binding on the operator but not on the motorist and fully funded by the private parking sector – all of these principles have been closely followed.

While it is true to say that this service is funded by BPA members POPLA guards its judicial independence fiercely and neither the BPA or its members have any influence on the decisions that it reaches. The decisions made are based on the evidence supplied by both parties and the law – including but not restricted to Contract Law, the Tort of Trespass, the Protection of Freedoms Act and Office of Fair Trading legislation.

The adjudicators are not affiliated with the British Parking Association in any way. The Lead Adjudicator, has been a parking and traffic adjudicator for more than 15 years and is supported by a team of assessors all of whom have appropriate legal qualifications.

At the point of writing some 1342 appeals have been received by POPLA with 458 adjudications having been concluded and communicated to operators. Of these 63% have been found in favour of the motorist and 37% have been found in favour of the operator.

Whilst it is too early to say whether this is indicative of the long term proportionality of POPLA decisions, it does show that the service is working as intended and that motorists now have a recourse where one did not previously exist.

Of course, POPLA is not independent of the BPA or of the industry in general.

However, one of its effects will be to persuade people of a legitimacy of the private parking industry and of the BPA.

It will also make many people feel that maybe a POPLA decision validates or legitimates the original penalty which has been foisted upon the motorist - and that if they lose their "appeal" then they should put their hands up and pay.

 

POPLA is not independent

The decisions I have seen are flawed both in their procedure and in their rationale.

I would not accept the statistics claimed by the BPA without an agreed independent audit and without knowing more about them anyway.

POPLA is not susceptible to enquiries under the FOIA

 

 

If POPLA is so independent, then why does the BPA publish their news messages for them?

 

HMV may be going down the toilet but His Master's Voice is alive and well!

 

 

[tomtubby]

Thank you for this information BF.

 

Given that the vast majority of the public have very limited ( if any) knowledge of private parking regulations, I am quite encouraged to hear that nearly 65% had successful appeals.

[lamma]

"judicial independence". Sheer fantasy.

[Crocdoc]

Thank you for this information BF.

 

Given that the vast majority of the public have very limited ( if any) knowledge of private parking regulations, I am quite encouraged to hear that nearly 65% had successful appeals.

 

Can we check the figures, I seem to recall that the BPA is not good with numbers, the figures provided to the Westminster Government relating to court actions springs to mind.

[BankFodder]

No. We can't check their figures and I agree that on previous form there is no reason to trust them. They are capable of being very inventive with their statistics.

 

If they were fully independent and set up as a public body, then we might be able to get a look at something approaching accurate data under the FOI.

[BankFodder]

Anyway, what do their figures matter. They have no legal standing.

 

I think that people should do all their dealing with the car park owner. Ask to see evidence of locus and evidence of losses.

 

Post up your requests and responses here.

[Crocdoc]

Anyway, what do their figures matter. They have no legal standing.

 

I think that people should do all their dealing with the car park owner. Ask to see evidence of locus and evidence of losses.

 

Post up your requests and responses here.

 

I agree entirely about taking the matter up with the landowner as apposed to third party agents, the reason I asked if the figures can be clarified is I understand that the BPA intend visit the Scottish Parliament with the view to obtaining keeper laibility, I have it from a very reliable source that there is intention to scrutinise the statistical information provided, as there appeared to be a SLIGHT miscalculation in the figure provided at Westmister during the consultation period.

[Nev Met]

I agree entirely about taking the matter up with the landowner as apposed to third party agents, the reason I asked if the figures can be clarified is I understand that the BPA intend visit the Scottish Parliament with the view to obtaining keeper laibility, I have it from a very reliable source that there is intention to scrutinise the statistical information provided, as there appeared to be a SLIGHT miscalculation in the figure provided at Westmister during the consultation period.

 

Fell free to provide me with a contact up there and I will provide them with chapter and verse on the Impact Assessment figures for the POFA

[BankFodder]