POPLA have been telling motorists that their cases have been adjourned because ParkingEye requested this.
![]()
a) What kind of cases should appeals be delayed for (Court of appeal and above?)
b) When should the delay start? (When the hearing is held or before?)
c) Who should be able to request delays? Parking companies? Motorists? Motoring organisations? POPLA themselves? The BPA?
d) In cases where a criminal prosecution is ongoing, as with Civil Enforcement, should all their cases be stayed until the prosecution is complete?
e) Does it have to be a parking case, or can cases be held up if there is a point of law at issue which is parking related?
In principle, The Prankster has no issue with cases being adjourned, but thinks POPLA should publish some ground rules.
b) When should the delay start? (When the hearing is held or before?)
c) Who should be able to request delays? Parking companies? Motorists? Motoring organisations? POPLA themselves? The BPA?
d) In cases where a criminal prosecution is ongoing, as with Civil Enforcement, should all their cases be stayed until the prosecution is complete?
e) Does it have to be a parking case, or can cases be held up if there is a point of law at issue which is parking related?
The Prankster looks forward to some answers.
Going forward, it looks like this type of thing will be happening 2-3 times a year.
However, The Prankster does have a serious concern that ParkingEye have not bothered to submit any evidence packs within the 28 day limit. it seems they want to have their cake and eat it. If they lose the appeal, they will not bother submitting evidence packs. If they win then they want the right to submit late packs. The Prankster consider this an abuse of process and that ParkingEye should have to abide by the same deadlines as everyone else.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster