Sign Barry Beavis's Petition Here
Hello to any BBC readers. This blog examines the practices, good and bad of the private parking industry.
Independent Appeals - Background
Since October 2012 private parking companies have been required to provide an independent appeals service for motorists who disagree that the ticket has been validly issued. Initially, the British Parking Association offered the POPLA service. Statistics show that around 50% of appeals are upheld by POPLA. A new trade association, the Independent Parking Committee, then formed, run by Will Hurley and John Davies of Gladstones Solicitors. They created their own appeals arm, called the Independent Appeal Service, which was run on entirely different lines. Parking Review reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld. Many parking companies decided to forum shop' and move to the IPC. Excel Parking, for instance, in the February 2015 issue of Parking Review revealed they had decided to forum shop and move to the IPC so they could win more appeals.
Kangaroo Court
Possibly because so few appeals are won by motorists, a number of online forums refer to the IPC Independent Appeal Service as a kangaroo court. But is that fair? This blog takes a close look at the IAS to decide whether it is a fair and unbiased appeals service or really is a kangaroo court.
To start with, the definition of a kangaroo court is taken from Wikipedia.
A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster defines it as a "mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".[1] The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.
A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun.
At first sight, the IAS appears to fit this definition perfectly, but to be fair to Will Hurley and John Davies, the geniuses who mastermind the IAS, a more detailed look should be taken.
We can start with the opinions of the parking companies who use the IAS. Here is an email from Northern Parking Services which was accidentally sent to the motorist rather than to 'Darren'.
On the face of then, Northern Parking Services are of the opinion that the verdict has already been decided and the IAS process is futile for the motorist. However, they are considering letting the motorist use it anyway, so as to give the appearance of being fair and just.
A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun.What do other legal experts think of the IAS system? Here is the opinion of the last Lead Adjudicator of POPLA, Henry Michael Greenslade, in his 2015 annual report on the types of process the IAS use.
OPERATOR RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTAs the IAS does not allow motorists to see and comment on the operators entire evidence, it is by Mr Greenslade's definition an unfair service. This has been borne out in practice. In a number of appeals seen by The Prankster, the parking company has submitted false evidence or distorted the truth, yet the motorist has been refused permission to bring this to the attention of the assessor.appeal. The IPC have also refused to reconsider any verdict. In contrast, in cases where false evidence has been presented to POPLA which has come to light after the event, the case has been reheard.
The operator is provided with 5 working days to provide written representations and evidence in support of their response to you. You will be notified by email when this has been submitted and the case will then be placed before an adjudicator for a decision to be made.
Please note, you are not able to respond to these submissions but you can view them by logging into the system.
It is of course a matter of record that on BBC WatchDog an undercover journalist caught IPC company PCM UK admitting they provided false information in appeals.
What does POPLA's scrutiny board think? In an open letter to the BPA they recognised that the IAS 'seems to operate with fewer safeguards.
The ISPA Board recognises that the BPA has acted in good faith in establishing POPLA and the Independent Scrutiny Board, as it had been encouraged to do by Government. While the Board has actively pursued a proper resourcing solution to discharge its remit it is aware of the cost pressures facing the BPA particularly since government appears to have endorsed the establishment of a second Approved Operator Scheme that seems to operate with significantly fewer safeguards for the independence of the service. This has led to a potential for ‘forum shopping “ where operators might seek to use an appeals service that provides a favourable outcome at low cost.
The British and Irish Ombudsman Association has clearly stated that such a situation is not best practice. In its guidance on development of appeals and ombudsman schemes it has stated the following;
“If there are ‘competing’ ombudsmen in a particular sector, this can create confusion or the public – who are unsure which business is covered by which ombudsman scheme. And public confidence is less where it is the business that has the choice of which ombudsman scheme to use.
This raises the appearance, and the risk, of businesses attempting to exercise an influence over the ombudsman schemes – by favouring the one that they like best and/or by threatening to undermine one scheme financially by threatening to move to another.
What doe the IAS's own scrutiny board think? Nothing, because there is no such board. Although the Government required the BPA to set up an independent board to oversee POPLA, they made no such requirements of the IPC. Here is Norman Bakers' letter to Patrick Troy of the BPA explaining that an independent board of trustees is important to establish public trust.
Of course forum shopping is now rife, and operators are leaving the BPA in droves for the IPC. Excel Parking explained in Parking Review in February 2015 that their decision to leave was based solely on forum shopping.
Excel cites frustration with the operation of POPLA as the main reason for its decision to swap trade bodies. An Excel spokesman told Parking Review: “Moving away from POPLA was the key motivation. Despite ongoing lobbying, POPLA continues to pursue its (hidden) 50/50 appeals rule, at the gross expense to AOS operators. In contrast, on the other side of the pond, the IPC adjudicates each appeal on factual evidence disclosed, and relies solely on current law, not ‘POPLA Law’!”
Simon Renshaw-Smith is the owner of Excel and his attitude to the law is well known. When he lost a court case against Martin Cutts he described the court ruling as "an embarrassment to the judicial system" and described the judge as "not fit to serve the civil courts". The car park in question, the Peel Centre, remains one of the most complained about car parks on forums. The signage at the Peel Centre remains appalling
Not everyone thinks the IAS are a kangaroo court. Malcolm Daughtrey, the IPC’s business development manager, said: “The IPC offer a more robust appeals service which is attractive to operators in providing efficiencies in the way the appeals are administers and the independent and impartial adjudication process. New members who have not be part of any Accredited Trade Association (ATA) have been attracted to the IPC and are currently going through the IPC rigorous audit process before being accredited with membership status."
However, it can be fair to say that a large number of respected people agree that appeals services run on the lines of the IAS are not fair to the consumer.
Official Standing
A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.
It is fair to say that the IAS does not meet this particular criteria as it currently has ADR Entity status, awarded to it by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.
However, there is a big but...
The criteria to become an accredited ADR Entity are laid down in law. The IAS falls woefully short of those standards, but once accredited has a short time to fix any problems. The CTSI did a poor job in awarding the IAS ADR Entity status and did not realise the many failings the IAS has. They have now been appraised and so the clock is ticking - either the IAS will have to conform or lose its ADR Entity status.
The IAS has addressed some of these failings, but a number continue.
For instance, the names of assessors are not disclosed and neither is the full selection method. Thus Will Hurley and John Davies can choose assessors who align with their own world view, and not for instance, accidentally hire someone with the views of Michael Greenslade.
The IAS continues to stop motorists from responding to operator evidence.
Disregards Standards of Law or Justice
A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.
To assess this one can look at the process flow of a number of cases. Once the IAS (owned by Will Hurley and John Davis) has ruled for the parking organisation many motorists quite rightly view the judgment as completely flawed and refuse to pay. The parking company can then get a 15% discount from Gladstone Solicitors (run by Will Hurley and John Davis) to help them take the case to court.
However, in all cases reported back to the Prankster, Gladstone Solicitors have fallen flat on their face and the operator has spectacularly lost. A number of these have been blogged.
Here is a typical comment from one of Will Hurley and John Davies IAS assessors. In this case the operator was pursuing the vehicle keeper who was not the driver. The keeper was appealing that they were not the driver, and keeper liability did not apply because the notice to keeper did not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4:
Non-compliance with POFA 2012. From the same case [ParkingEye v Beavis], Moore-Bick LJ said that the provisions in the POFA strongly supported the conclusion that Parliament considered it to be in the public interest that parking charges of this kind should be recoverable.
Thus we see the assessor is ruling that Statutes laid down by Parliament count for nothing, and because a judge ruled on a completely different issue on one case (the level of charges), the assessor will disregard the law of the land on keeper liability, and fail entirely to properly consider the issues
This of course is completely bonkers and shows what a sham the whole appeals system is. This is a typical appeal result which motorists have forwarded to The Prankster.
This also confirms that the IAS fails to meet another ADR Entity criteria, which is to use competent and unbiased assessors. It is difficult to argue that the assessor who made that judgment is not either incompetent or biased.
Complaints About IAS Decisions
When the Prankster complained about UKPC doctoring photographs to POPLA, the matter was investigated, and ended up with the operator being banned from the DVLA.
When the Prankster complained to the IAS about operators falsifying evidence and potentially doctoring photographs, The Prankster ended up being banned from the IAS.
Dear Prankster,
It is with some regret that we find ourselves in a position where we feel no longer able to communicate with you constructively. Unfortunately, we have tried to engage with you but increasingly your comments and approach lack any objectivity or credibility. It is increasingly clear that your only objective is to antagonise anybody who is connected to the parking industry and that you are not willing to appreciate any other viewpoint than your own. This polarised and warped approach makes communicating with you a complete waste of time.
Due to your vexatious approach we will no longer consider any communications from you. For the sake of clarity I can confirm we will not read, respond or consider, in anyway, any correspondence received from you or any company you are affiliated with whether the correspondence relates to you or any other individual.
Obviously this is a completely different approach from POPLA:
Is The IAS A Kangaroo Court
The Prankster has his own opinion but everybody is free to make up their own mind. Certainly the IAS seems to fit all the criteria of the Wikipedia entry for a kangaroo court.
A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. Merriam-Webster defines it as a "mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".[1] The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.
A kangaroo court is often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun.
To summarise
- From the evidence available the IAS appears to blatantly disregard recognised standards of law and justice
- The IAS carries official standing, but does not met the legal minimum criteria for an ADR Entity
- It is used by operators to give the appearance of a fair hearing, although internally they know they are just going through the motions
Should Motorists Use The IAS?
The IAS have two services, standard and non-standard.
Opinions are divided on using the standard service. One view is that the judgments are so perverse that the motorist should use the IAS because the operator would not dare use the judgment in court. The judgment can also be publicised on forums to put pressure on the Government to change the system. The other opinion is that using the IAS legitimises them and so it should not be done.
The non-standard service charges the motorist a non-refundable £15 and requires them to sign an agreement that they will not dispute the verdict, that they will pay the parking company in full, and they will also pay any debt collection charges added. They are also not allowed to dispute the verdict on any grounds whatsoever.
The non-standard verdict should therefore not be touched with a bargepole!
With the non-standard service the fox is not only in the henhouse but was invited there by the farmer!
Right To Reply
The Prankster always allows the right to reply, and if the Lead Adjudicator of the IAS disagrees with any of the facts in this blog, he is welcome to put his case or ask for corrections by emailing prankster@parking-prankster.com
The Solution
The solution is to remove the right to run an 'Independent' appeals service from those who have vested interest in parking companies winning appeals, and place them in the hands of those who are truly independent.
The Prankster therefore backs the call of the British Parking Association for there to be one appeals body which services all trade associations, which is truly independent.
The Prankster believes this appeals service should conform to all ADR Entity regulations, not just pay lip service to the idea,
The service can be funded, as IPSA point out, by a small levy on keeper enquiries to the DVLA.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster