jasetheace
New member
- Apr 13, 2011
- 712
Dear All
I have watched with interest these past couple of years the debates on this forum relating to Parking Enforcement on private land.
Interestingly today, POPLA, the independent arbitration service for parking on private land have published their annual report and I thought I would share it with you below;
http://popla.co.uk/docs/default-sou...library/popla-annual-report-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=0
I do not have the time for an essay but I would like to share my initial and main thoughts and interpretations.
1. The percentage of appeals sent to POPLA that go uncontested by the operator (Withdrawn) is unacceptable, particularly among the big players in that sector. Routinely, the withdrawal rate for the bigger players is between the 20% mark (the point at which it becomes questionable) up to 54% for the worst performing operator. The only conclusion that the BPA (British Parking Association) can make is that the overall figure of 27% is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They are either playing a numbers game or the on the ground car park experience and back office functions are not fit for purpose both of which inevitably lead to a high withdrawal percentage.
2. In any event, withdrawal rates also artificially inflate success rates for those appeals that are fully assessed. However, shamefully this is not always the case and the worst performing of the big operators manages to ensure that it either withdraws or loses 65% of all appeals referred to POPLA. If I were seeking managed enforcement for my private land, I would be looking for an operator who is confident enough to keep withdrawals low and yet still maintains a success rate for fully assessed appeals at or above the 60% mark.
3. Lastly however and this is an aside to the likes of Lady Seagull the overall position indicates that of all appeals referred to POPLA, 57% are won by the operators. So, for those that claim to have a 100% win rate against operators through their forum advice and appeals templates, there is a clear disconnect between their claims and reality. My point here is Buyer Beware. Don’t get yourself an unnecessary CCJ through naively following everything you are told online. Follow the appeals procedures (particularly POPLA), speak to the operator, speak to the BPA or IPC and where an operator disgracefully has no Customer Service Function (and there are some that literally do not have any) speak to the landowner direct. You have calm, considered options (not driven by Agenda) open to you.
Summarising, it is clear that the BPA must work harder to hold accountable those that are not driven by values based practices. It is within their gift given that rather awkwardly, some of those big players hold positions of influence within the BPA structure itself. However, it is a two-way street. Landowners have the right to enforce responsible parking on their land and monetise it should they wish. Motorists have a responsibility to respect and adhere to those wishes.
I have watched with interest these past couple of years the debates on this forum relating to Parking Enforcement on private land.
Interestingly today, POPLA, the independent arbitration service for parking on private land have published their annual report and I thought I would share it with you below;
http://popla.co.uk/docs/default-sou...library/popla-annual-report-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=0
I do not have the time for an essay but I would like to share my initial and main thoughts and interpretations.
1. The percentage of appeals sent to POPLA that go uncontested by the operator (Withdrawn) is unacceptable, particularly among the big players in that sector. Routinely, the withdrawal rate for the bigger players is between the 20% mark (the point at which it becomes questionable) up to 54% for the worst performing operator. The only conclusion that the BPA (British Parking Association) can make is that the overall figure of 27% is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They are either playing a numbers game or the on the ground car park experience and back office functions are not fit for purpose both of which inevitably lead to a high withdrawal percentage.
2. In any event, withdrawal rates also artificially inflate success rates for those appeals that are fully assessed. However, shamefully this is not always the case and the worst performing of the big operators manages to ensure that it either withdraws or loses 65% of all appeals referred to POPLA. If I were seeking managed enforcement for my private land, I would be looking for an operator who is confident enough to keep withdrawals low and yet still maintains a success rate for fully assessed appeals at or above the 60% mark.
3. Lastly however and this is an aside to the likes of Lady Seagull the overall position indicates that of all appeals referred to POPLA, 57% are won by the operators. So, for those that claim to have a 100% win rate against operators through their forum advice and appeals templates, there is a clear disconnect between their claims and reality. My point here is Buyer Beware. Don’t get yourself an unnecessary CCJ through naively following everything you are told online. Follow the appeals procedures (particularly POPLA), speak to the operator, speak to the BPA or IPC and where an operator disgracefully has no Customer Service Function (and there are some that literally do not have any) speak to the landowner direct. You have calm, considered options (not driven by Agenda) open to you.
Summarising, it is clear that the BPA must work harder to hold accountable those that are not driven by values based practices. It is within their gift given that rather awkwardly, some of those big players hold positions of influence within the BPA structure itself. However, it is a two-way street. Landowners have the right to enforce responsible parking on their land and monetise it should they wish. Motorists have a responsibility to respect and adhere to those wishes.
