CMS UK Ltd no longer in the BPA

Stroma

This is worthy of its own thread, per this reply. But as you can see currently the bpa logos are still there. Wonder if they are some of the first to jump ship ?

http://www.cmsukltd.com/

jobabtwitch wrote: »

From aos@britishparking.co.uk received Saturday 16th November 2013.


"Dear ******

We have contacted the operator in regards to your complaint and can advise as follows. The operator has been made aware of the need for 40% discount and this was immediately changed to ensure they were compliant.

The operator has confirmed they did apply for your keeper details from the DVLA after the 28 days had expired for appealing. However, the operator experienced a delay receiving the details back from the DVLA and this is why it took so long.

Please be aware this operator are no longer members as of the 5th November 2013. We do not believe there has been a breach of our Code and therefore consider the case closed.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.



Kind regards,



AOS Investigations Team"


Anyone any comments?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Well i wonder if they have joined the IAC.

A phone call will soon elicit that information

Umkomaas

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Well i wonder if they have joined the IAC.

A phone call will soon elicit that information

Not listed on the IPC AOS list which is now up from the initial 5 to 6. Seems slow in taking off :cool:

http://www.theipc.info/#!aos-members/cv75

HO87

On the subject of new members of the IPC I note that although CMS have yet to appear Sussex Security Solutions - who have occasionally figured here - became members today!

spacey2012

​Independence Guaranteed​

​We guarantee that your appeal will be considered by a completely independent and impartial adjudicator.

Whilst the Appeals system is administered by the IPC, each appeal is dealt with by a qualified and practicing barrister who will consider written representations from you and the Parking Operator before deciding whether the charge was lawfully issued.

Adjudicators are appointed under a contract of self-employment and it is an express term of their appointment that they must retain complete impartiality. They are not permitted to be influenced by the IPC and must not exercise any bias towards either the Parking Operator or the Motorist.
They can only consider the lawfulness of a charge and cannot consider mitigating circumstances.

spacey2012

Appointed by who ? Do they mean Employed by us ?

4consumerrights

No chance to CMS Car Park Management Services (UK) Limited joining anyone as they entered into voluntary liquidation!

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcprodorder?ft=1

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Thanks 4cr

4consumerrights

spacey2012 wrote: »

Appointed by who ? Do they mean Employed by us ?

I'm sure they do! One of Pranksters blogs gave a figure for IPC's "independent" appeal - somewhere along the lines of £25 if successful and £15 if not (or vice versa - cant remember which) - hardly the figure that a self employed solicitor would expect to earn, let alone a barrister!

I reported this lot to the SRA as the directors of IPC are misleading their relationship with Gladstones (as one and the same) and are using this IPC to drum up business for Gladstones. - Must chase up SRA as haven't responded yet.

I almost feel sorry for the parking companies signing up with them as under their terms and codes of practice apparently PPC's must INDEMNIFY the IPC for losses. When you consider that they get the PPC's to use Gladstones for any contracts and signs etc and are then expected to indemnify IPC - the directors are getting paid twice!

Umkomaas

4consumerrights wrote: »

I almost feel sorry for the parking companies signing up with them as under their terms and codes of practice apparently PPC's must INDEMNIFY the IPC for losses. When you consider that they get the PPC's to use Gladstones for any contracts and signs etc and are then expected to indemnify IPC - the directors are getting paid twice!

Almost like one of oor Trev's contracts.

Knuckle draggers beware! Don't sign nuffink you don't understand :cool:

HO87

The complaint to the DVLA about the IPC's IAS requirement that appellants must identify the driver to them or appeals will not be considered (thereby undermining both POFA and the intentions of Parliament) is still underway having been made on the 5 October. I understand that the DVLA and IPC are in talks to resolve the issue.