BPA Sanctions?

HO87

The BPA have published a scale of "offences" and "penalties" that applies to members of their Approved Operator Scheme. It is currently available on their website - Read It Here. This now applies to many of those names we often see here such as MET Parking, OPC, National Parking Control, Valid Parking, Elite Management, Valley Enforcement and Excel amongst others.

A read through of the list of "offences" would seem to suggest that single instances involving some companies would see them max out their 12 points in one hit but it remains to be seen whether the BPA will actually follow through. Worringly, quite how much attention was paid to putting the document together must be in doubt and the general format is suggestive of something that has been hurriedly cobbled up. Take a look at point 4.2, for example, "Failure to ensure that frontline staff are not easily identified" - presumably this will oblige AOS members to issue ski-masks to their staff?

However, more importantly the CPUTR 2008 "...and other consumer protection law" are established as benchmarks. I suggest that breaches are fully reported to the BPA to enable them to police it.

sofa-spud

HO87 wrote: »

The BPA have published a scale of "offences" and "penalties" that applies to members of their Approved Operator Scheme. It is currently available on their website - Read It Here.

Hmmm,
So they consider that operating without the land owners authorisation (4.1) does not warrant the offence being classed the most serious...
I would have thought the act of trespass alone should warrant the member being struck off

5.11: Seems to suggest their members have no reason to issue any more tickets then...:p

As you point out this seems somewhat cobbled together.
I think it shows them as no better than some of the cowboys already out there.

peter_the_piper

At a quick look section 4 most fail on 8 out of 9 points and section 5 most fail on 9 out of 15. If BPA were to follow through as they should they would be out of members very quickly.

All a smoke screen to make GB's lot think they are doing their bit. Both them and SIA are toothless and have yet to remove anyone for even the most flagrant breaches.

anewman

The BPA will go out of business very quickly if it applies the penalties and kicks everyone out. They need to have members to be profitable. As I have said previously BPA are part of and are in on the scam This scheme is simply intended to deflect attention from the BPA to the individual companies, but it will surely back-fire on them if the companies keep being naughty and BPA don't apply and back up the penalties.

dacouch

Maybe the BPA members will follow our advice and just ignore the fines they receive from the BPA...

anewman

Lol topic coming to Pepipoo soon. "BPA fined us, can we legally ignore the fine?"

dacouch

anewman wrote: »

Lol topic coming to Pepipoo soon. "BPA fined us, can we legally ignore the fine?"

Maybe there will be a section on the BPA website saying "Ignore idiots on web forums, you have to pay our charges"

and a FAQ section (To be authentic it should have poor spelling) with gems such as

Q- I have received a fine from the BPA is it enforceable

A- Yes of course it is, if it's not paid we will send bailiffs to your premises to collect the money owed and it can effect your credit rating

etc etc

HO87

anewman wrote: »

The BPA will go out of business very quickly if it applies the penalties and kicks everyone out. They need to have members to be profitable. As I have said previously BPA are part of and are in on the scam This scheme is simply intended to deflect attention from the BPA to the individual companies, but it will surely back-fire on them if the companies keep being naughty and BPA don't apply and back up the penalties.

Correct. All the more reason why every breach should be formally complained of. This document is continuing to enable them to claim the moral high ground. If they fail to act robustly in response to specific complaints then that high ground could rapidly turn into a quicksand.

Coblcris

I concur and support that view.

Paranoid

HO87 wrote: »

Correct. All the more reason why every breach should be formally complained of. This document is continuing to enable them to claim the moral high ground. If they fail to act robustly in response to specific complaints then that high ground could rapidly turn into a quicksand.

Been there! Sympathetic replies! Villains still "Approved Member"

If, at least, demoted, electronic access to the DVLA database would be lost.

molerat

That document is so full of errors and typos it is laughable.

Level IV: These contraventions ................... event. A level II contravention carries a maximum penalty of 5 points .................. advised.

Level V: These contraventions ............................... similar. A level I contravention carries a maximum penalty of 10 points ..............advised

It starts off mentioning level I, II, III etc then goes on to give examples of level 1, 2, 3 etc offences, very un-professional but what else do we expect.