BPA views on keeper liability and other issues

Coblcris

The DVLA does not produce the minutes, all you may get is a list of DVLA attendees.
I doubt the DVLA would provide even that.

peter_the_piper

Would it not be possible to find out how deeply the dvla is involved with the bpa?

bargepole

Here's an interesting extract from that document:

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"The sector will only be granted Keeper Liability if an IAS is launched. Government have asked the BPA to formally deliver an IAS but we have outlined a number of conditions before doing so;[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That Keeper Liability is across the board – for tickets issued on the windscreen and via ANPR. (PT believes that Government are listening to this point and that there could be a change)[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That there is reference on the face of the Bill to the introduction of an IAS[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That Government specify their plans on how they propose to deal with ‘rogue ticketing’ – we have suggested that all companies involved in parking enforcement on private land must join an ATA (Government appear reluctant on this point)[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That Government offer some form of funding for the set-up of an IAS – either via funding, match-funding or a loan (Government also appear reluctant on this point)"[/FONT]

So the Government are saying that they won't legislate for Keeper liability until there's a Independent Appeal System in place, and the BPA are saying they won't implement an IAS unless the Govt. gives them, or lends them, the money - which the Govt. seem unlikely to do.

There's also a tongue-in-cheek bit in point iii, where the BPA want the Govt. to force all PPCs to join an ATA (Approved Trade Operator). The list of ATAs currently extends to, er, one - step forward the BPA! (Trebles all round).

The more I read about this fiasco, the less likely I think it is to ever happen.

bromsgrovebarry

The inherent unreliability of ANPR means that any attempt to allow its dodgy data to be the basis of law is going to end in tears.

peter_the_piper

bargepole wrote: »

Here's an interesting extract from that document:

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"The sector will only be granted Keeper Liability if an IAS is launched. Government have asked the BPA to formally deliver an IAS but we have outlined a number of conditions before doing so;[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That Keeper Liability is across the board – for tickets issued on the windscreen and via ANPR. (PT believes that Government are listening to this point and that there could be a change)[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That there is reference on the face of the Bill to the introduction of an IAS[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That Government specify their plans on how they propose to deal with ‘rogue ticketing’ – we have suggested that all companies involved in parking enforcement on private land must join an ATA (Government appear reluctant on this point)[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]That Government offer some form of funding for the set-up of an IAS – either via funding, match-funding or a loan (Government also appear reluctant on this point)"[/FONT]

So the Government are saying that they won't legislate for Keeper liability until there's a Independent Appeal System in place, and the BPA are saying they won't implement an IAS unless the Govt. gives them, or lends them, the money - which the Govt. seem unlikely to do.

There's also a tongue-in-cheek bit in point iii, where the BPA want the Govt. to force all PPCs to join an ATA (Approved Trade Operator). The list of ATAs currently extends to, er, one - step forward the BPA! (Trebles all round).

The more I read about this fiasco, the less likely I think it is to ever happen.

This is the bit which would be wanted most by them.

"""SRS requested that the Board consider how motorists could have to pay of their appeal is vexatious, unreasonable or frivolous. He suggested that the pre-hearing documents should be worded in such a way that might allow the operator to recover costs. This will be considered during implementation."""

hillcats

Load of ol' rubbish !

Just like the crap they sent in the post, keeps my postie in work though !

esmerobbo

I have copied and pasted most of the points that have been raised here, and highlighted them and wrote a further letter to my MP.

Looks like a top grade case of them having their cake and eating it too!

Looks like Renshaw-Smith has been given the task of testing the water with NPO's The one they won would be the one against "Alphabet car hire" one of the others we know about was kicked out at Melton Mowbray [twice]

As for the "vexatious, unreasonable or frivolous" appeals having to be paid for by the motorist, then it should be reciprocal and their vexatious, unreasonable or frivolous claims should have to be compensated!

robredz

esmerobbo wrote: »

I have copied and pasted most of the points that have been raised here, and highlighted them and wrote a further letter to my MP.

Looks like a top grade case of them having their cake and eating it too!

Looks like Renshaw-Smith has been given the task of testing the water with NPO's The one they won would be the one against "Alphabet car hire" one of the others we know about was kicked out at Melton Mowbray [twice]

As for the "vexatious, unreasonable or frivolous" appeals having to be paid for by the motorist, then it should be reciprocal and their vexatious, unreasonable or frivolous claims should have to be compensated!

If this busted-!!! !!! as in donkey, sellout to the BPA ever became law, the courts could be clogged with NPO's as everyone should close ranks and refuse to name the driver, as a mass civil disobedience, after all Kenny Clarke is closing the prisons, so after the pensioners jailed for non payment of council tax, or by HMRC for not paying that tax bill they knew nothing about,are accommodated, there is no room for the rest of us.

SodG24

I thought it was nice of them to tell us who they plan to lobby in the House of Lords - now we can do the same

Alexis27

Looks like Renshaw-Smith has been given the task of testing the water with NPO's The one they won would be the one against "Alphabet car hire"

Who would hold written information about who was likely to have been driving at the time and would have little reason not to comply, other than lose potential custom. But then they do that themselves by just passing on admin charges anyway.

When it comes to individuals who genuinely don't know who was driving, have no paperwork to submit, or who would put up a fight against having to name relatives, it's a different ballgame.