DVLA to Listen to Consumers

bargepole

Full story here: http://www.clearest.co.uk/news/2012/11/5/forum_to_advise_on_preventing_private_parking_rip_offs

Dodgy practices in the private-parking industry have led the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to create an advisory committee of consumer and motoring bodies to help sort out the mess, much of which stems from unclear signs and documents.

The new ‘DVLA Consumer Forum on Private Parking Management’ will include people from the AA, the RAC, Which?, Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading and Citizens Advice, as well as Martin Cutts of Plain Language Commission and Nev Metson, the former police officer who has exposed many of the worst private-parking rip-offs. As we’ve reported, the industry chases drivers for around £160million a year in phoney (ie, non-official) fines for supposedly breaching car-park rules. The forum will meet twice a year.

Kite2010

And will the BPA and it's members take the advise of the advisory committee?

Nope

taffy056

Happy to say it was myself and maybe others, who emailed the bbc xRay programme mentioned in the link about excel being banned from dvla access. I'm really pmsl over that . As for this well nev and Martin are on it so lets see

BASFORDLAD

This is great news and a step forward

trisontana

I see the BPA have been invited to this forum:-

We are aware of the DVLA Consumer Forum and have been invited to take part. We are happy to support any initiative that can improve standards across the private parking sector and that can help create a fairer landscape for all – motorists, landowners and operators.

Steve Clark
Head of Operational Services (BPA)

HO87

Kite2010 wrote: »

And will the BPA and it's members take the advise of the advisory committee?

Nope

The group has been formed to advise the DVLA not the BPA - and they only have a minority presence. If the DVLA listens to the advice it is given and issues directives based on that then the BPA will have no option but to dance to their tune. DVLA access is the golden goose (as I think I first described it some three years ago) and loosing that collectively (through, perhaps withdrawal of ATA status) or as a result of a larger or more extensive series of suspensions - as we have seen recently - is the BPA's nightmare scenario. It is not unreasonable, I'd suggest, to conclude that the formation of this group indicates that the DVLA is seizing the initiative. And quite properly so.

We are not out of the woods yet - not by a long chalk. However, after many years of shouting from the wilderness, being dismissed as a disgruntled anti-lobby by the BPA, we have demonstrated that what we have been saying all along has at least some merit. It is my view that the underlying cause of the BPA's current predicament is not so much the POFA/POPLA debacle (let's be honest - that has yet to play out) but the revelation of the correspondence surrounding the legislative impact assessment, coupled with the FOI case number details from last year.

A neutral assessment of those documents allows for only a relatively limited number of conclusions to be drawn. Either the BPA was making it up as they went along; they were misled by their membership or the BPA was unable through a lack of resources, understanding or management to conduct an adequate survey of its membership (I'm well aware of the BPA's case that they were pressed for time but the "survey" they eventually provided was as the result of repeated demands from the DVLA. To cap it all, so out-of-whack were the figures provided that the DVLA questioned them and they were revised). In any event, IMO, regardless of which conclusion (or combination of them) applied the nett effect was to call the BPA's standing into question.

This then combined with the VCS Upper Tax Tribunal judgment, and the utter debacle at Scun thorpe. It is probably just as well that the latter case was heard in the county court because I am quite sure that had it been heard at a court of record (and therefore established precedent), aside from the fact that it would undoubtedly be being appealed, the PPC case would have been terminally undermined.

Then of course we have lurched through the POFA advent and the notorious BPA email to its members. These again have a distinct air of mismanagement about them and whilst this may not have been of the BPA's design nor even as a direct result of their actions (or inactions) they suggest a lack of real engagement with their membership (or, indeed, engagement by their members with the BPA). Something is clearly wrong in Toyland.

That having been said, there is still a sizeable wheel to be shouldered and there is no reason to give up now nor even ease off the gas. In fact, quite the contrary. Now is the time to become even more enquiring and vigilant.

bargepole

HO87 wrote: »

... It is my view that the underlying cause of the BPA's current predicament is not so much the POFA/POPLA debacle (let's be honest - that has yet to play out) but the revelation of the correspondence surrounding the legislative impact assessment, coupled with the FOI case number details from last year....

<puffs out chest> ... if that is so, then I'm proud to have played my part in revealing those BPA lies. I think I'll award myself a chocolate hobnob!

trisontana

This morning I asked Steve Clark of the BPA whether those six banned companies are going to be disciplined for their actions that led to the bans, and whether there is a conflict of interest over at least two senior figures from these companies sitting on the BPA board. This is his reply:-

We don’t discuss individual disciplinary cases with third parties – I hope that you appreciate our position on confidentiality in such matters. Please be assured that all cases are considered on their individual merits and it makes no difference to the outcome of any case whether the member concerned is on the Board or not. There is no conflict of interest.


As usual, a non answer.

esmerobbo

trisontana wrote: »

This morning I asked Steve Clark of the BPA whether those six banned companies are going to be disciplined for their actions that led to the bans, and whether there is a conflict of interest over at least two senior figures from these companies sitting on the BPA board. This is his reply:-

We don’t discuss individual disciplinary cases with third parties – I hope that you appreciate our position on confidentiality in such matters. Please be assured that all cases are considered on their individual merits and it makes no difference to the outcome of any case whether the member concerned is on the Board or not. There is no conflict of interest.


As usual, a non answer.

Well according to Patrick Troy the DVLA was wrong too suspend them!

http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/parking_review/news/?id=32653

trisontana

He would say that, would't he?

So we can assume it from Troy's statement that those six members won't suffer any disciplinary action at all.

BASFORDLAD

The BPA acknowledged that the wording used by the six firms was in breach of its code of practice. But the association argued that the DVLA’s decision to ban the firms from receiving keeper data was “disproportionate”.

The BPA’s chief executive Patrick Troy said he was disappointed that the DVLA had imposed the databan just weeks after the ban onclamping and removals on private land, which came into force on 1 October. He also argued that the DVLA should have given the new independent private land appeals service POPLA the chance to get underway before imposing any bans.

Whilst we recognise that the DVLA is often criticised for giving out motorists’ data, we are concerned to ensure that the response to any breach is proportionate,” Troy told Parking Review. “We have already shared this view with colleagues at the DVLA but have now formally written to its chief executive. Having established POPLA at significant cost to AOS members and because we see this as a means by which motorists can obtain redress when faced with any alleged shortcoming by operators, we have also written to Norman Baker, the responsible minister, to emphasise this concern.”

Why shoud popla have been given time? Whats it got to do with theses breaches? He doesnt like it when things are not going his way. Sounds like he has thrown his toys out of the pram.

I would like to see that letter he wrote.....

I hope the DVLA don't back down!!!