BPA tells lies to Government - here is the proof!

peter_the_piper

That's what I hoped but feared that the BPA would have pulled a flanker to hide the ""results""

ManxRed

A quick note on the 4m tickets figure. Apparently the DVLA responded with figures of their own (remember they supply the RK details to requests from the PPCs) to state that this seemed high, and the figure was duly revised to 1.8m.

Why alarm bells didn't go off at that point I have no idea.

There is the additional scenario that the PPCs lied to the BPA during the survey. And yes, I do realise that the BPA is largely made up of PPCs anyway, but I'm sure there will still be an element of bragging going on.

trisontana

You see that bragging on various PPC websites where they boast that they have won "many court cases", without giving actual hard evidence.

ManxRed

Yes, I can see why they'd brag to the likes of us and the public (after all, the whole thing is a massive bluff) but to their own Trade Body? It wouldn't surprise me....

HO87

ManxRed wrote: »

A quick note on the 4m tickets figure. Apparently the DVLA responded with figures of their own (remember they supply the RK details to requests from the PPCs) to state that this seemed high, and the figure was duly revised to 1.8m.

Why alarm bells didn't go off at that point I have no idea.

There is the additional scenario that the PPCs lied to the BPA during the survey. And yes, I do realise that the BPA is largely made up of PPCs anyway, but I'm sure there will still be an element of bragging going on.

Correct. I have never managed to understand why the DVLA did not make the request for figures from the MoJ in any event. After all, they went to the MoJ looking for confirmation of the savings?

I'm far from convinced that the BPA has ever had the "control" over its PPC members that Patrick Troy boasted it had during a presentation to a Parliamentary committee in 2010 and, in my view, this email supports that view entirely. Nor am I convinced that the BPA was "lied to" in the accepted sense as this would imply that the figures were "concocted" by its members. I think the situation is a little more complex than that.

The fact remains that at some point figures were "produced" either amongst AOS members or internally to the BPA. I believe this issue goes to the very heart of the BPA's continuing role as the "gatekeeper" to the DVLA's EDI. Either it was "snowed" by its membership and perpetuated it or someone within its organisation attempted a "snow" job on behalf of its membership. To have such poor connection with its members to have been so utterly taken in - if it is the former that applies - is one thing. However, to have engaged directly in what amounts to deception is another. Neither cast the BPA in a particularly good light , from my standpoint, and I cannot see how it can realistically continue in its role as an ATA.

Mr Troy you owe the British public an explanation.

taffy056

The bpa are complicit on this, they would be utterly stupid and grossly negligent to not know they were being lied too. I don't think that they are stupid so it comes down to knowing that they are lying to parliament.

I am sorry but not knowing that their members didn't take 90k cases to court but 845 claims out of 1.8m tickets issued, is frankly absurd, they are run by the ppcs they had to know as the directors of the bpa are ppc owners.

This has to be complained about to MPs until questions are answered. Has anyone been in touch with watchdog ?

Coupon-mad

This is what the BPA said in an email quoted in this linked thread in 2008:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t26345.html

''You are correct in that these tickets are only enforceable through Civil Contract Law. This is why a ‘penalty’ is not allowed to be issued. As I said in my last e-mail, we did instruct our members to take immediate steps to remove any mention of a penalty from their documentation. If they have not done so…

We can only recommend actions as we are a membership organisation, and we don’t have any legislative powers.

So I would use the analogy that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink."

That came from a "Technical Co-ordinator (compliance)" at The British Parking Association in 2008. I would say the analogy still stands.

Also I would say that if the DVLA rely on the BPA to control its members how come the DVLA had to run to the ICO with its tail between its legs recently over this horrendous DPA breach:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...nc#post54980975

AOS member debt collectors getting data via their own back door, to pass the data on to non-AOS PPCs! In that instance it was TNC but I suspect that's just the tip of the iceberg (Ranger Services anyone?).

taffy056

Ranger services - what do they do ? They don't run any car parks that I have ever heard of, they provide and install cameras and run the back office stuff for companies by the looks of things. So why do they need access to the dvla records ? Why are they even members of the bpa never mind the AOS scheme ? Probably the answer is that they make a substantial amount of money by selling data on illegally.

esmerobbo

taffy056 wrote: »

Ranger services - what do they do ? They don't run any car parks that I have ever heard of, they provide and install cameras and run the back office stuff for companies by the looks of things. So why do they need access to the dvla records ? Why are they even members of the bpa never mind the AOS scheme ? Probably the answer is that they make a substantial amount of money by selling data on illegally.

Same goes for the debt collectors on the list, why do they need access if they can only act for a company that does.

Hence my complaint to DVLA regarding TNC, if the debt collectors didn't have access, then this problem would not exist!

TNC have been told to repay 78 people who paid for charges demanded for a company not on the AOS, but how many others have there been?

trisontana

A few weeks ago I wrote to my MP about this matter and today he replied and included a letter from Norman Baker. This Baker letter has been featured on here before, but I have found two interesting points he has raised. One says:-

The discrepancy between the two sets of figures will be taken into account as part of the normal policy review cycle.

The second was:-

The alternative option was to make it a criminal offence for the keeper to refuse to name the driver in charge of the vehicle. This was discarded because criminal sanctions were deemed to be a disproportionate sanction to a parking charge on private land.