POPLA appeals in limbo.

[armadillo71]

Received today;

 

 

Quote

 

Before your appeal was determined, it was adjourned pending a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (B2/2014/2010).

As you will be aware, the decision of the Court of Appeal has now been handed down. A copy of the judgment is available on the POPLA website.

As previously stated would happen, the Lead Adjudicator has directed that the case will be adjourned for a further 21 days. The case will therefore not be listed before 21 days in order to allow both parties to make any representations in light of the Court of Appeal decision. It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.

Since a larger than usual number of appeals will therefore now fall to be considered on or after the same day, there may inevitably be some delay before your case is decided.

Yours sincerely

R Reeve

POPLA Administrative Team  

 

 

 

It seems that all outstanding London Councils POPLA appeals have been ' adjourned ' regardless of the appeal.

My PE appeal was based on only one point- lack of standing. This has no connection with Beavis and as such I was expecting a decision...

Five weeks after the hearing estimated date, I get the above email which has no relevance to my case.

So who, when and if a decision is made is any ones guess....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

That is PE's fault, they asked for them to be put in abeyance whist Beavis was being considered. They fancied that they would win the lot if they waited rather than losing them one at a time.

[Mike_hawk]

Its difficulty appears to be that PoPLA is bound by dft guidance, Beavis shouldn't have any bearing on the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss at PoPLA as the two [ADR/Tribunal or civil] remedy can never align.

 

From recent comms with ISPA I get the impression the industry is desperately seeking a means to [re]interpret dft guidance.

[armadillo71]

It seems like it's only the non computer savvy caretaker left at the London Councils POPLA office;

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

Unfortunately due to a system error you may have received an incorrect letter. Please find attached the letter that you should have received.

We apologise for any confusion that this may have caused.

 

 

 

POPLA Administrative Team

 

 

 

 

The ' correct ' letter;

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

 

 

As you may be aware, a case concerning parking on private land, ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis, has now been heard by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. However, a decision is not expected for some time.

 

 

Where either party has requested an adjournment or where it appears to the Assessor that a POPLA appeal raises the same issue as in the above case, and there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, the matter will be adjourned.

 

 

Accordingly, your appeal is adjourned to a provisional date for determination of Monday 9 November 2015.

 

 

 

In the meantime, no enforcement action can proceed once a case is registered at POPLA, before the POPLA appeal is determined. Further, there is absolutely no requirement to pay any sort of ‘administration charge’ to the operator, in order for the case to be taken out of the list.

 

 

You should be contacted again after the decision of the Supreme Court is handed down.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

M Tembo

 

 

POPLA Administrative Team

 

 

 

 

As stated earlier, my appeal was on one point only - lack of standing...

 

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

cant see that a system error actually authors a letter that is completely wrong.

[Mike_hawk]

The issues probably a little wider than the letter. London councils being out of pocket, the commercial position would be to offload as many case files as possible at minimal cost. Stalling under the matter of Gpol seems sensible enough [for LC] regardless of the appeal. There seems to be an agreement that all gpol cases post August 2015 and pre October are to be decided by neither London councils or the Ombudsman service.......... if you were owed 180k and had the opportunity as a business to bin everything received in the final weeks of service, would you consider any appeals or throw them all in the same basket which you knew you would never be called on to decide?

[Mike_hawk]

Email address below which may [or may not] be useful if you want to press the issue with ISPA

 

From: Nicola Mullany

[armadillo71]

Email address below which may [or may not] be useful if you want to press the issue with ISPA

 

From: Nicola Mullany

 

 

Really?

 

ISPA are funded by the BPA... Or not as the case may be.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/popla-board-raises-issues.html

 

This is the latest info from their website as far as I can see;

 

http://ispa.co.uk/news?date=2015-03

 

 

If I contact any one it would be the BPA, but I think I will wait and see where it takes us...

[Mike_hawk]

Not sure I'd ever consider it or Popla independent, budgets for both are agreed by the ATA [bPA in this instance].

 

Up to you whether you set the cat amongst the pigeons or let the matter rest.

[ericsbrother]

The problem is due to the parking companies not properly considering well constructed appeals causing a larger number being taken to POPLA rather than disposing of them at once. This is down to greed and rubbish business models. You also get the appeals that when made to POPLA are really just mitigation and thus a waste of time for all parties but that is factored in to the cost of the scheme. I cannot see an improvement for the BPA mambers unless there has been a shift in the brief given to Ombudsmand Services Ltd to limit the range of what may be appealed, such as the legality of the contractual relationship of the parking co and the landowner. If things like that are disallowed then the knowing will do as is happening with the IAS, just appeal and wait for the response and use it to beat them with as they generally do not satisfy the law.

[Mike_hawk]

I'd agree...... it would be naive to believe the industry is doing anything but clutching at straws in pressurising parliament to regulate it. It wants [and needs] a change to guidance which would only come about with the intervention of state regulation. PoPLA's final report under London councils was fairly clear in that Beavis would have little to no effect on Gpol appeals regardless of the outcome. You would think that PoPLA which purports to be an ADR facility would publish its terms of reference, the fact that it does not speaks volumes.

[armadillo71]

Well London Councils still have money to burn on paper, printing and postage. I have just received a letter through the post exactly the same as the email in post 4.

 

 

[Mike_hawk]

Well London Councils still have money to burn on paper, printing and postage. I have just received a letter through the post exactly the same as the email in post 4.

 

 

 

It still wants its 180k........ would it risk breach of contract by not responding to those appeals still within its control?

[armadillo71]

British Parking Association refuse to pay London Councils POPLA bill

 

The dispute between the BPA and London Councils for payment of the POPLA service rumbles on. On Thursday London Councils are holding a session to try and resolve the issues. This will be a closed session with access barred to access to reporters and the public.

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/british-parking-association-refuse-to.html?m=1

[Mike_hawk]

British Parking Association refuse to pay London Councils POPLA bill

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/british-parking-association-refuse-to.html?m=1

 

Oh dear........ I understand the scrutineer has a solution - it is now actively advertising for an assessor to assess the assessors [old and new]

[ericsbrother]

honour amongst thieves?

[armadillo71]

The BPA will have to tender these cases out to another party to get them assessed. There is a good case that these tender costs and the resultant fees paid to the tender winner could be deductible from the amount owed to London Councils, especially now information has emerged regarding their clumsy attempt to deceive the BPA. regarding the amount of work done on these cases. The Prankster previously estimated the true cost of a POPLA appeal was around £100. 4,000 cases will therefore cost 400,000 to assess from scratch. It may therefore end up that London Councils and the London taxpayer owe the BPA money rather than the other way round.

 

Who owes who? Who knows?

[armadillo71]

Who is the old POPLA contract with?

 

The POPLA contract has been made available through an FoI request.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/who-is-old-popla-contract-with.html?m=1

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/293928/response/720412/attach/html/3/Contract%20for%20parking%20appeal%20service.pdf.html

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/contractual_arrangements_with_th

[armadillo71]

British Parking Association deny proper appeals process for 4,000 stayed cases despite ISPA concerns

 

Shortly before the Court of Appeal heard the ParkingEye v Beavis case, ParkingEye wrote to POPLA asking that all cases which depended on the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss be stayed pending the judgment.

 

Henry Michael Greenslade, the Lead Adjudicator of POPLA, agreed, and a number of cases were stayed. The Court of Appeal judgment came out and it was almost immediately appealed further to the Supreme Court. In line with normal practice for statutory parking appeals the stay remained until this new judgment was available. Mr Greenslade wrote to all stayed cases explaining that they would by held over until at least November 2015.

 

 

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

[armadillo71]

The British Parking Association have had a rethink and have agreed to fully re-hear all stayed POPLA cases. Both parties will also be allowed to submit further representations.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/stayed-popla-cases-to-be-fully-reheard.html

 

We shall no doubt be in formed who will be adjudicating soon....

 

Wonder who is paying.?

[armadillo71]

BPA Acts to reconsider POPLA Appeals following independent review

 

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.

 

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

 

 

A new and independent service provider... ? Just for these 3500 cases or can you now choose which IAS to use for a BPA member....

[armadillo71]

British Parking Association appoint parking debt collector to deal with stayed POPLA cases

 

The*British Parking Association have apparently appointed*Wright Hassall*to deal with the stayed POPLA cases, although they have not yet confirmed this.

 

Wright Hassall operate at the debt-collection end of the parking industry, sending out second stage debt collection letters on behalf of Gary Osner's firm ZZPS, and also filing claims on behalf of parking operators. This is therefore far from an independent appointment and The Prankster thinks it a wholly inappropriate choice.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/british-parking-association-appoint.html

 

Staggering if true.....

[caro]

Although also debt collectors now (sadly), Wright Hassall are a fairly large firm of solicitors. Is this any different to Gladstones and the IPC?

 

They used to be well respected round here. They've lost mine.

[armadillo71]

PRESS RELEASE – ISPA appoints new independent assessors The Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals on Private Land today announced the appointment of Charlotte Holland and Nick Price as the new independent assessors for the service overseen by ISPA. The independent assessors will report to ISPA on the quality of the decisions made under the PoPLA scheme. Charlotte Holland is a criminal and regulatory lawyer. She sits as a Tribunal Judge and is an ombudsman with the Financial Ombudsman Service. Nick Price is a Chief Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service where he is responsible for the CPS National Asset Recovery Service. He leads a large team tasked with restraining and confiscating criminal assets both within England and Wales and internationally. Nicola Mullany, chairman of ISPA, welcomed Ms Holland and Mr Price to their new roles, saying: “The independent assessors will play a vital role in helping to ensure the quality of PoPLA decisions is high and that the service is - and is seen to be - independent. Charlotte and Nick bring a wealth of experience from careers in the law. This, coupled with their independence, judgment and integrity, equips them ideally for the role of Independent Assessor.” The appointment follows a selection process that included advertising in the national press and interviews with a panel of non-executive board members.

 

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/ispa-appoints-new-independent-assessors

 

http://ispa.co.uk/

[caro]

Amazing that a criminal lawyer and Chief Crown prosecutor for the CPS will involve themselves in this murky business.