BPA views on keeper liability and other issues

ripped_off_driver

Here's an interesting set of BPA AOS minutes found on the FPRA website, therefore public domain information. It gives a good idea of the mindset of the BPA. Seems all is not as rosy as presented on keeper liability and NPOs are being sought against easy target hire companies, presumably in an attempt to set some kind of precedent.

http://www.fpra.org.uk/Other%20publications/Linked%20articless%20two/AOS%20Board%20Meeting%20minutes%2021.7.%202011.docx

trisontana

Two interesting points on there. One which shows that the DVLA aree hand-in-glove with the BPA:-

(ii) Dealing with media enquiries and looking to suppress/minimise them where possible – getting our key messages over when journalists are looking to write about the Freedoms Bill – working in conjunction with the DVLA Press Office.

And this about NPOs :-


11.1
Norwich Pharmacal Orders (NPO’s)

SRS (Simon Renshaw-Smith ) updated the Board on his progress with NPO’s especially with leasing companies who wish to withhold the driver details. He has already won at Court and has 3 other cases outstanding which cover 200 pcn’s issued going through the Court process at the moment. He explained how he batches these and the various costs that apply.
GAO enquired whether he has publicised his successes on the various internet forums. SRS explained that this is in process and will be done especially if the ‘big’ case that he is working on has a favourable outcome. JH urged against publicising this too widely before Keeper Liability is introduced.

I thought that Excel had lost that NPO case?

trisontana

Further to the above. Those minutes are dated 17th July and the NPO was struck out on the 26th of that month.

AlexisV

GAO enquired whether he has publicised his successes on the various internet forums. SRS explained that this is in process and will be done especially if the ‘big’ case that he is working on has a favourable outcome.

Yes, Akbar did a fantastic job of that didn't he?

peter_the_piper

You omitted 11.2
DB introduced his point and emphasised that an increasing number of motorists are using the ‘I was not the driver’ defence. DB asked that dialogue over the matter of being able to request Keeper Details earlier than currently specified be opened. The DVLA position was explained on how it would be difficult to agree to this request. Commitment was made to look at this further.
KR explained that there is a BPA/DVLA Liaison Group and that this matter could be tabled there.
MG suggested that the requirements of what is expected of a motorist be carefully considered – should they not be required to know who is driving their car at any time?

BPA/dvla liason group??

AlexisV

DB introduced his point and emphasised that an increasing number of motorists are using the ‘I was not the driver’ defence

You either weren't the driver or you were. If the numbers are increasing, it must be chance - the PPC's happen to be making claims where the RK wasn't the driver. In fact, the PPC's seem to have had a habit lately of making claims where they KNOW the RK wasn't the driver. UKCPS and Devere are both being bloody idiotic in this regard at the moment.

MG suggested that the requirements of what is expected of a motorist be carefully considered – should they not be required to know who is driving their car at any time?

"Required to know" - no.
"Required to tell" - no.

'Expectation' is irrelevant - there is no such law to placate the PPCs' wishes.

vax2002

The BPA website serves very little purpose other than spread misinformation and scare potential victims of this fraud of impersonation .

HO87

peter_the_piper wrote: »

BPA/dvla liason group??

I feel a FOI request coming on.

Incidently I note that one of the members present is one Gary Osner (initials shown as GAO). Is this the same Gary Adam Osner who, according to the CCA register is one of the officers at our favourite debt collectors - Roxburghe's?

Les Knight - at one time New Business Director at Euro Car Parks (according to the Sunday Times, at least) - has left. Would the bandying around of words attributed to him:

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Some ticketing firms claim to have won cases in court, but Les Knight, new business director of Euro Car Parks, a private parking firm, admits it has not taken legal action against any non-paying drivers, and that any future action is likely to be difficult because of the legal uncertainty. [/FONT]

have anything to do with that departure?

Coblcris

peter_the_piper wrote: »

You omitted 11.2
DB introduced his point and emphasised that an increasing number of motorists are using the ‘I was not the driver’ defence. DB asked that dialogue over the matter of being able to request Keeper Details earlier than currently specified be opened. The DVLA position was explained on how it would be difficult to agree to this request. Commitment was made to look at this further.
KR explained that there is a BPA/DVLA Liaison Group and that this matter could be tabled there.
MG suggested that the requirements of what is expected of a motorist be carefully considered – should they not be required to know who is driving their car at any time?

BPA/dvla liason group??

There is also a TEC BPA group, for local authorities obviously.
Membership details of this group is kept secret.
What more need to be said about the true nature of the parking industry ?

fb1969

trisontana wrote: »

GAO enquired whether he has publicised his successes on the various internet forums. SRS explained that this is in process and will be done

So the BPA is in favour of its members "gloating" on the net (should it ever happen).

What a respectable organisation the BPA is!!!!

robredz

If the BPA get their way, the MP's who voted for the legalisation of their scams will rue the day they ignored opinion and voted in favour