MSE News: British Parking Association agrees to face its critics

peter_the_piper

oldone wrote: »

Let us not forget BPA is a trade association that derives its income from membership fees. They are hardly going to remove wholesale companies that break their code of practice as that would hit their revenue stream, in much the same way PPC's are going to 'bend the rules', to protect their income.

If we are to have PPC's, then as a start there should be an independent body, with no connection to the Parking Industry, that the motorist can appeal to. No money to be paid to the PPC until the appeal has been heard.

Hopefully not paid by the PPC or BPA as it would not be seen to be independant or impartial.
I hope you don't think I'm for the BPA/.PPC but feel it may prove useful if they could get their house in order. Dumping/sorting out ppc's would be a useful start if it acheived anything.

Methusela

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Dear BPA representative[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Unlike some other postings in this thread I would like to thank you for making the effort to answer some of our questions. As you have already seen, your answers are not always accepted at face value but hopefully the challenges posted by Coblcris and others will give you an opportunity to answer our concerns in more detail.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Personally speaking I have a number of questions to which I would appreciate your response. However for now I will satisfy myself with a single question, leaving the others until you have replied to this first one.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]My question relates to a statement which appears in Kelvin Reynolds' letter to Martin (under the heading “Fines”) where he says “Members (of BPA) must not misrepresent to the public that the parking management work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or some other public authority”. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Keeping Kelvin's statement in mind, can I now refer you to the BPA Code of Practice. Both the front cover and the preface of this Code show photos of a “Penalty Charge Notice”. The wording on this notice reads: [/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]WARNING – IT IS AN OFFENCE FOR ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE DRIVER TO REMOVE THIS NOTICE”.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I looked up the definition of “Offence” and found:- [/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]noun:[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]a crime or punishable violation of law[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]”.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Can you please explain which UK criminal law BPA considers would be broken if anyone other than the driver removed a penalty charge notice?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If, as I feel sure, no law is broken, then you must agree that this notice seriously misrepresents the truth and is designed to give the recipient the impression that he or she could face criminal prosecution. By inserting these pictures into their code, BPA are encouraging their members to misrepresent their Parking Charge Notices as legal documents enforceable by law, which they are not. The parking operator I came up against recently used identical wording and was a member of BPA.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So how do you square BPA's incitement of its members to misrepresent these notices with Kelvin's statement that they should not misrepresent themselves? [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I look forward to reading your reply.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Incidentally, I see that in Appendix 3 of your Code, the wording has been changed to “Unauthorised persons must not remove or interfere with this ticket”. This is a considerable climb-down but it has not prevented your members from unlawfully misrepresenting their parking charge notices.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Some very good questions so far, for the BPAPR to answer tomorrow, hopefully!

Can I add one?

What's your members' reaction to Windsor & Maidenhead Borough Council's recent decision to outlaw private clampers? That Council has stated publicly that they will seek redress in the form of an ASBO against any private clampers in the Royal Borough. The Council spokesman went on record saying he hoped other Councils would follow suit and that the repercussions would lead to an end to clamping in England & Wales (as it is already banned in Scotland of course).

Thread here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1973785

How do your clamping members justify their hugely inflated clamp removal/tow-truck charges and why should they NOT face an ASBO for car-napping and demanding money with menaces?

Driver8

What's the odds he/she doesn't come back?

If they do, i bet it is someone else with more so called knowledge of their scams.

I would love to know how much money they are not scamming lately :j:j

They make me sick.

BFG_2

The main reason that the BPA is on a bit of a PR exercise at the mo is that they are deep in the brown stuff..............

A lot of people are now aware that the invoices are unenforceable and so the PPCs are losing money hand over fist, and it's only going to get worse with the likes of MSE getting the message out there.

As such they are hoping that by 'being open to consultation' etc that the gov will throw them a lifeline by somehow 'formalising' the PPC processes and allowing the better PPCs [who strictly adhere to the guidance] to charge the RK [as opposed to the driver]...ie the same as the councils.

Other than getting this these companies are on borrowed time as their business model is totally collapsing under the massive increase in non-payments of 'invoices'.

Bye bye PPCs, you'll be missed.....not.

ripped_off_driver

BritishParkingAssociation_company_representative wrote: »

I believe there is a precedent however I am not familiar with it off the top of my head (I was provided with this information by a colleague). I will check this and get back to you.

So, you post that there is "precedent" that a RK is presumed to be the driver but have no idea whether it is true? Not exactly responsible behaviour. I have a feeling that the "precedent" referred to will be the widely discredited Combined Parking Solutions v Thomas case from our old friend Perky. As regular readers will know this case was only decided in the PPC's favour because the defendant posted on a web forum that he was the driver and then denied it in court (at least Perky got some value from the many, many hours he spends trolling on consumer forums). As a County Court case it has no "precedent" value whatsoever and anyone saying so is deliberately attempting to mislead.

But the driver identity is only one hurdle the PPCs have to face. Earlier the BPA rep mentioned an action in contract "or" trespass. He does not appear to understand that there is a vast difference between the two. Any damages payable for trespass, if it could be proved, would be nominal. And one of the BPA's leading members, Excel, came a cropper with this in May when they lost a case in Wrexham that they had taken under contract law when they should have proceeded in trespass. To my knowledge they have not appealed. Although as a responsible poster I would never claim that this County Court case sets a "precedent".

infotouch

Methusela wrote: »

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Dear BPA representative[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Unlike some other postings in this thread I would like to thank you for making the effort to answer some of our questions. As you have already seen, your answers are not always accepted at face value but hopefully the challenges posted by Coblcris and others will give you an opportunity to answer our concerns in more detail.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Personally speaking I have a number of questions to which I would appreciate your response. However for now I will satisfy myself with a single question, leaving the others until you have replied to this first one.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]My question relates to a statement which appears in Kelvin Reynolds' letter to Martin (under the heading “Fines”) where he says “Members (of BPA) must not misrepresent to the public that the parking management work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or some other public authority”. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Keeping Kelvin's statement in mind, can I now refer you to the BPA Code of Practice. Both the front cover and the preface of this Code show photos of a “Penalty Charge Notice”. The wording on this notice reads: [/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]WARNING – IT IS AN OFFENCE FOR ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE DRIVER TO REMOVE THIS NOTICE”.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I looked up the definition of “Offence” and found:- [/FONT]


“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]noun:[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]a crime or punishable violation of law[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]”.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Can you please explain which UK criminal law BPA considers would be broken if anyone other than the driver removed a penalty charge notice?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If, as I feel sure, no law is broken, then you must agree that this notice seriously misrepresents the truth and is designed to give the recipient the impression that he or she could face criminal prosecution. By inserting these pictures into their code, BPA are encouraging their members to misrepresent their Parking Charge Notices as legal documents enforceable by law, which they are not. The parking operator I came up against recently used identical wording and was a member of BPA.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So how do you square BPA's incitement of its members to misrepresent these notices with Kelvin's statement that they should not misrepresent themselves? [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I look forward to reading your reply.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Incidentally, I see that in Appendix 3 of your Code, the wording has been changed to “Unauthorised persons must not remove or interfere with this ticket”. This is a considerable climb-down but it has not prevented your members from unlawfully misrepresenting their parking charge notices.[/FONT]

The BPA also deal with local authorities and the tickets issued by them have the offence wording (which is correct).

So I think that deals with your question

peter_the_piper

Not reaally, councils have authority to use the word, ppc's do not.

ripped_off_driver

"BPA agrees to face its critics".

More like - BPA rep come on, makes a few totally false statements, then disappears again leaving a ton of unanswered questions.

Same old, same old.

BFG_2

Summary so far

BPA - waste of space

PPCs - lying, scamming scum

'Fines' - actually invoices - and totally unenforceable ie ignore

PCN - made up to be same as PCN on official docs - ignore

BPA members - don't follow own guidance

To finish....PPCs are doomed to disappear within the next 12 months, bye bye.