BPA tells lies to Government - here is the proof!

HO87

notts_phil wrote: »

Also why they [the BPA] are keeping stum on the UTT ruling

A number of reasons underlie this I believe.

Until reasonably recently the BPA used to offer a model contracts for members to adopt. Given that Simon Renshaw-Smith sits on the BPA Board is it conceivable that the contract his companies have been using bears some resemblance to the BPA model?

There is good reason to suspect that there would be a reluctance on the part of estate managers to delegate/provide the degree of interest a PPC would require to satisfy the VCS test and they may actually be prevented from doing so by their own contracts/licences.

It is at least debatable that in order to pass the VCS test a PPC would have to enter into lease/licence and pay rent/fees. How many would actually be prepared to do so and would also be in a position to take on the liabilities/H&S responsibilities that are likely to flow from such leases/licences?

Would the public liabilities/H&S duties actually mean that they would have to have someone present at each of the car parks?

Resolving these problems is perfectly achievable provided PPC's are willing to stump up the costs and have a business model that would accommodate the additional costs.

This ignores the basic VCS issue - that of VAT being payable. How are PPC's going to provide a VAT invoice and continue to dress it up as a "proper" ticket?

Besides, as soon as the BPA publicly acknowledge the impact of the VCS judgment they will be under the cosh to provide an equally public answer to the issues the case presents them and their members.

Boiling it down to gravy, I believe the BPA is stalling whilst they scrabble around for an answer. I would dearly love to be a fly on the wall in Haywards Heath at the moment. And its not actually going to be discussed at the AGM? Well - its not on the agenda and nor is there any provision for any other business.

esmerobbo

Someone's been busy trimming posts from this thread, including one from me!
Don't think anything I posted needed deleting?

Basically quoted the BPA's spokespersons quote and called it cobblers!:o

Coupon-mad

Bumped back to the top! Being discussed again here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4115805

Crabman

esmerobbo wrote: »

Someone's been busy trimming posts from this thread, including one from me!
Don't think anything I posted needed deleting?

Basically quoted the BPA's spokespersons quote and called it cobblers!:o

I'm afraid you're mistaken.

No posts have been deleted from this thread as far as I can see.

esmerobbo

Crabman wrote: »

I'm afraid you're mistaken.

No posts have been deleted from this thread as far as I can see.

Look at post #28 Coupon mad posted a flippant link to a website, there was a link before that to a website quoting the BPA!

It is of no consequence but I was trying to understand why a post was deleted. When if I can remember rightly just said what they had quoted was a load of tosh!

At the time there was a lot of posts being deleted.

I know you can see more then normal posters, but I am certain a few posts were deleted.

As I said it matters not and I stand to be corrected if nothing was removed.

HO87

I'm bumping this one back to the top as it provides the background to the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and the misleading figures that were used by the DVLA when drafting the document for the government.

You will recall that the RIA made reference to a figure of between 2 and 5% of all tickets issued culminated in action in the county court and that this equated to a total of between 36,000 and 90,000 cases (based on a total of tickets issued of 1.8million).

The story tailed off at a point when Patrick Troy had explained the figures away as being anecdotal and were "...an approximate estimation". Indeed the RIA describes these figures as being the result of anecdotal conversations with the BPA.

Well, we now know rather more of the story - courtesy of Neville Metson. Thanks again Nev, we all owe you a debt for your determination.

It transpires that BPA were repeatedly put under the cosh by the DVLA to come up with figures for inclusion in the RIA. Eventually, Steve Clark, then head of the BPA's AOS, was backed into a corner and sent the following details by email of which the following is verbatim:

From: Steve Clark
Sent: 01 February 2011 09.44
To: --
Cc: Kelvin Reynolds; Patrick Troy
Subject: AOS Operator Survey Results

Dear --

Given the shortness of the deadline there are elements of the results of the survey we would have liked further time to research, most notably the chance to question those operators at either end of the results spectrum to better understand their specific submissions. Furthermore we operate in a commercial world and this is sensitive data which many will not release.

The analysis would appear to indicate that the 4 million tickets issued each year are roughly split 50/50 between those via ANPR and those where the ticket is placed on the car - roughly 2 million each. We estimate that ANPR will increase its share of the market from 50% to around 75% in the medium term.

The percentage of those tickets which remain unpaid via ANPR is just under 40% (39.53%) whereas the proportional split of paid/unpaid where the ticket is placed on the vehicle is nearer to the 74%/26% ratio supplied last year. Operator policies vary significantly on whether to take court action with some not taking any to Court at all - in overall terms the survey tells us that between 2-5% of tickets issued end up in Court.

This information has been derived from operator members in a severly contracted period meaning the data may not be as accurate as we would have liked. An extended period would have enabled us to verify the data.

Kind regards

Steve Clark
Head of Approved Operator Scheme
British Parking Association

[Some details redacted]

So much for "anecdotal conversations" and "approximate estimations", The head of the AOS conducted a survey of members and the figures are the result of an analysis of that survey.

And the evidence of that survey and the figures provided are now in the public domain.

taffy056

Vast difference here then 4m tickets issued each year, which is more than double what we have been told previously. And the 2%-5% figure would be 80,000-200,000 cases taken to court, obviously a blatant lie, and the bpa is looking even more incompetent than previously thought. A complete sham

peter_the_piper

Slight change in tack
After a suitable bedding in period, will we be able to do a FOI on the results of the appeals body or will it be a complete fudge as it is not a government dept. like patas?

bargepole

HO87 wrote: »

... The head of the AOS conducted a survey of members and the figures are the result of an analysis of that survey.

And the evidence of that survey and the figures provided are now in the public domain.

They cannot possibly have conducted a survey. Any survey, even if they only spoke to a dozen or so of their members, would have quickly revealed that the % of tickets ending up as court claims would be less than 0.05%.

So the conclusions we can draw from this are that:
a) The BPA have no idea what their members get up to
b) The BPA make up lies, even to government
c) The DVLA should, in view of points a) and b), now rescind the BPA's status as an Approved Trade Association.

bargepole

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Slight change in tack
After a suitable bedding in period, will we be able to do a FOI on the results of the appeals body or will it be a complete fudge as it is not a government dept. like patas?

The London Councils, who will operate the POPLA scheme, are a local government body, and should therefore have to respond to FOI requests.