BPA's prescribed charge

Big_Bad_Dad

Hi to all

Sorry if the following information is already known to most people but in light of the many recent court cases, chiefly those in which the antagonist triumphed over the victim, I'd like to analyse the position of the BPA.

The BPA Code of Practice notes the following on charges:
"If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance."



The likes of Parking Eye are spreading their muck telling everybody that £100 is a reasonable charge prescribed by the BPA (in consultation with Department for Transport). They even cite last month's (November 2013) win over David Collier (3JD01638) whereby the judge - when dealing with the defendant's claim of excessive charge - swallowed this yardstick as though it were regulation written into POFA.

As a matter of fact where damages are concerned, the BPA state no such thing as "£100 maximum". If an operator knows its damages to go beyond this, he can push for whatever figure he likes so long as he calculates it pursuant to the practice direction before legal proceedings. The BPA simply don't "expect this amount to be more than £100", and that per se is not a licence for a parking company to march on with a £100 charge each time they suspect breach of contract. Damages have to be calculated (ie. justified) anyhow if they are being claimed, whether £100 or £1.

Be sure to raise this if you are in court any time soon.

hoohoo

Yes, it is amazing how when you bring this to the attention of the BPA they decide to fudge the issue, despite almost 100 POPLA verdicts against parkingeye. trisontana has some sterling replies from the BPA on this point, but I can't find the link.

Perhaps this is because the man with the ultimate responsibility for making the decision, Steve Clarke, seems to have no training in law or accountancy, due to his background in publishing and marketing, although he does list mathematics among his skills on linkedin

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/parking-prankster-2013-parking-awards.html

trisontana

Here you are :-

[FONT=&quot]Dear Mr XXXXXXX
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Good to hear from you again.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your note does not change my contention that a genuine pre-estimate of our loss should i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nclude the costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms & conditions and the costs incurred in following up on any breaches of these identified.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would suggest that in the examples provided, the operators have failed to provide strong enough evidence of how their charges are calculated and this is why POPLA have found against them. If you could detail the operators concerned to me, I will ensure that the appropriate training takes place.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I doubt that you will agree with the above comments but I am sure that there is one thing that we will be both be pleased with – namely, the fact that POPLA appear to disagree with my contention is proof positive of the independence of the service which is a great thing for the motorist and for the parking profession. As we approach the first anniversary of POPLA some 7999 adjudications have been made with about half of these being in favour of the motorist – in essence about 4000 people have had their tickets cancelled who without POPLA would probably not have done so – the parking landscape is clearly a far better place than 12 months ago.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kind regards[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Steve[/FONT]


And:-

[FONT=&quot]Dear Mr XXXXXXX
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your e-mail. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please be advised Parking Eye are within their rights in regards to their parking charge notices and their pre-estimate of loss. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Parking Eye would have calculated the sum as a genuine pre-estimate of their losses as they incur significant costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified, including but not restricted to the following examples:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
· Employment of parking attendants to patrol the parking location to include supervisory staff and vehicles, training, uniforms, etc.
· Ad-hoc mobile patrols of the parking location
· Supply & installation ANPR equipment, monitoring and maintenance
· Erection and maintenance of the site signage
· Parking payment and enforcement equipment to include the pay & display machines, hand held devices, cameras, etc.
· Membership and other fees requiring payment in order to manage the business effectively including those paid to BPA, DVLA and ICO
· General costs including stationery, postage etc
· Employment of office based administrative staff along with systems and software
· Contribution to Head Office overheads
[FONT=&quot]Please note that this sum will be clearly laid out on the signage at the parking location which offers the parking contract to the motorist, and by remaining at the site, Parking Eye will contend that the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of that contract including the charges for breach of contract, and furthermore accepts that they are reasonable. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We do not feel it is right to seek to change the terms of an established contract after it has been breached. If the motorist was unhappy with the contract terms, then the motorist should not have remained at the location. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Parking Eye’s breakdown of costs does not breach our code of practice and therefore we are unable to investigate the matter further. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kind regards,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]AOS Investigations Team [/FONT]

esmerobbo

One would hope that if these are indeed losses incurred by a naughty motorist parking outside of their conditions, then these companies wont be claiming the cost of these items against any tax liability, or if they do they then send the tax man a cheque for the amount recovered, if indeed they have been claimed as a business expense?

trisontana

Even Steve Clark admits that at least half of the parking charge notices should never have been issued in the first place. So what are the BPA doing about it? More "education" of the PPCs?

Big_Bad_Dad

"General running costs" do not pertain to one alleged incident. Only a small part does and that is windscreen ticket/images of vehicle in situ (either parked, or in/out captures on ANPR), DVLA application, paper, stamp and blots of ink. Together this would increase an "unpaid parking charge" to have remained on the property (ie. NOT unpaid PENALTY disguised as "parking charge") by a few pence, not 1000% of the original £10 sought for parking at MSAs.

February 2011 - VSC vs Ibbotson

All the rest is, as related by Esmerobbo, offset against tax.

trisontana

I think I have seen a copy of a BPA email where they were discussing what the level of the charge would be. They decided on that £100 because it mimics council penalty charge notices. In other words, another attempt to fool the motorist into thinking that this charge is legitimate and not a scam.

Aaron_Aadvark

The BPA Ltd admitted this to the Parliamentary Select Committee.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/BPA_CodeofPractice_2012_v2_March2013.pdf

"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance."

From Patrick Troy's recent appearance before the Select Committee:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmpublic/crimeandsecurity/100128/pm/100128s03.htm

Column 104, Q215

Patrick Troy: "Two things that consumers most when they use car parks, whether local authority car parks or private. One is the size of the penalty charge and the other is the lack of signage. We tackled those two issues head on in our code of practice. You will find that the charge is more or less similar to that in the local authority sector. We try to base it, as far as possible, on that."

So the BPA Ltd would have us believe that the similarity between a Local Authority charge, which is designed to be a penalty, and a PPC charge, which is a genuine pre estimate of loss, is coincidental.

And how can the BPA Ltd "base it" (the genuine pre estimate of loss) on anything? The GPEOL is what it is (and much less than what is being charged).

Big_Bad_Dad

Aaron_Aadvark wrote: »

The GPEOL is what it is (and much less than what is being charged).

The GPEOL is the same in all cases, NOTHING.

Parking Eye perennially claim that a motorist is not coerced into using a car park and if he doesn't accept the conditions, he should not park there. This is mere whimpering; if a sign says that motorist parking there agrees to hand over his house to the management, this neither makes the condition lawful nor does it mean the motorist accepts it when he parks.


Of course, parking companies are not "coerced" into buying keeper details and launching their harassment campaigns either, those losses are self-inflicted. This leaves one question, what is the liquidated loss flowing from the breach? That one is easily answered.

If we have an example whereby a vehicle in mid-winter has its front plate obscured by a pile of hard snow, it will certainly escape ANPR enabling it to remain for longer than the time limit. When in such a circumstance the landowner and parking company are able to conclude they are out of pocket but they simply do not know their culprit, they have a case. Imagine finding someone has driven into your car when it was parked, breaking your bumper. The villain may have scarpered without leaving his details but you don't need to obtain his name and address to assess the scale of your own damages.

Damages are real and visible, not imaginary or subject to fantasy.

teabelly

If the parking charge were a genuine pre-estimate of loss notices wouldn't be identical. They are all pretty much the same amount so therefore you can only conclude they're nonsense and PPCs are just chancers.

At some point PE and the rest are going to have stop being vexatious litigants and send genuine estimates, none of which I'd assume would be much more than £10 for most parking mistakes.

PE's ANPR system is particularly devious as they don't provide clocks or receipts or anything, even in paid for car parks so you never have proof of any payment. I'm sure this should be illegal. Most if not all of them don't tell you how much they think you owe when you put in your number plate so people are just guessing. They make it is as difficult as possible to adhere to their contract. This needs to be challenged too so their whole anpr system is tossed into the bin. BPA need to get a spine and have them thrown out. PE on their own are pretty much bringing the entire sector into disrepute and make the cow boy clampers look like amateurs.

HO87

teabelly wrote: »

BPA need to get a spine and have them thrown out. PE on their own are pretty much bringing the entire sector into disrepute and make the cow boy clampers look like amateurs.

Whilst I agree with pretty much all you have said I think you might misunderstand the way things actually are.

The BPA Limited is not any form of regulator and as for getting a spine - based on its performance to date (the occasional slapped wrist and the ejection of small fry) - there is nothing to which it could be attached!

The BPA Limited is simply an old fashioned trade protection society, an old boys club, that exists to protect and promote the interests of its members. PE are one its largest members and one really does have to pose the question whether such a trade protection society would ever bite the hand that feeds it? Certainly there has been no evidence - made public - of that taking place with PE or any of its other major members.

Your use of the phrase - "bringing the entire sector into disrepute" - suggests that there is some element of the private parking sector that is deserving of some. I accept that there is some but the virtually universal business model which is based on an interpretation of "genuine pre-estimate of loss" that is, frankly, convenient, partisan and flies in the face of established law suggests to me (at least) that any repute the sector is due could be measured in nanometres.

Collectively the figleaf the sector employs to cover its embarrassment is minuscule and hangs by the tiniest of threads.