Apcoa ba02

trisontana

So what do you say about Steve's "so-called advice" statement?

EnigmaPart1

trisontana wrote: »

Steve, It's not "so-called advice". It's real advice given by people who know what they are talking about . Unlike you. You have has no legal training and always side with the PPC.

Actually that isnt true at all. If you want to know more email me

EnigmaPart1

trisontana wrote: »

So what do you say about Steve's "so-called advice" statement?

I would say its how he has been approached.

All I say is that there are many ways to approach things

I mean how many people on this forum (and others) have the ability to email a ppc which doesn't have a good reputation on these forums and ask for a ticket to be cancelled? and get what they ask for?

<pin drop time>

Fergie76

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

I actually have a good working relationship with Steve Clark and although we dont see eye to many on a few things we do agree on a lot and i have found him amicable face 2 face as well. Quite engaging.

In fact all the people I email at the BPA I get on, but then I often bring up issues with them and they always deal with them within a few days and I get what I expect from it.

In what way do you have a working relationship with him?

4consumerrights

I would also echo what Enigma states and found Steve Clark to be approachable and indeed found him amiable at Parkex.

He certainly listened to concerns that were raised regarding a couple of parking companies and the manner in which they operated.


DRP however do have a nasty little habit of issuing letters during the appeals process and can cite many examples and indeed of letters demanding payment when tickets have been cancelled.

I would suggest that the OP writes back to Steve stating that whilst his contact details are indeed freely found on a variety of internet fora, this is a matter for breach of COP and the KADOE contract that APCOA hold with the DVLA. Copy in the DVLA also. Point out that this does not bode well for raising standards in the parking industry.



Point out that also as DRP are also members of the BPA then you wish to raise this formally with the BPA as well for an investigation as it may be unclear where this administrative error has no doubt occurred in this case.

Send another letter to APCOA with a copy of the proof of posting of the first appeal and state that you have regrettably had to raise this matter up with the BPA and the DVLA and that there must be some error as you have now received a letter from DRP.

Write a cease and desist letter to DRP referring the alleged debt back to APCOA but pointing out that you were still undergoing the appeals process available to you. State that as DRP are members of the BPA - you have raised this issue with them and suggest that they encourage their client to cancel this charge and that any further demands for payment will constitute harassment.

Point out that this could have serious consequences and re-iterate that they should either cancel this charge now (at which point you will not claim any costs in this matter) or issue a valid POPLA code.

trisontana

This is the sort of anwser I have received from the BPA. It was from one of their "investigations team", but when I asked Steve if he agreed with those statements , he said he did. As you can see they don't seem to know the difference between actual losses caused by a particular parking incident, and day-to day running costs :-

[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]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That's why I have no faith in their judgement[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

4consumerrights

Yep have seen that before :-)

However it is a well known fact BPA are running workshops for PPCs in attempts to justify their parking charges and therefore he can not possibly admit to that

That does not mean to say that Steve Clark cannot or will not respond to complaints as was prompted before on the Siross thread for example.

EnigmaPart1

Fergie76 wrote: »

In what way do you have a working relationship with him?

Well as i deal with Parking Companies 7 days a week i raise issues with him most weeks or with his colleagues on issues about POPLA

They get addressed and things get dealt with as requested.

No longer do certain PPC's get away with not supplying evidence.

Fergie76

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

Well as i deal with Parking Companies 7 days a week i raise issues with him most weeks or with his colleagues on issues about POPLA

They get addressed and things get dealt with as requested.

No longer do certain PPC's get away with not supplying evidence.

Going by this and some of your other replies, I'm guessing you are someway connected/working for the parking ticket appeals service or whatever it is called?

boxa55

hmm a real can of worms now. but hey ill give him a chance to sort it out so we will see in due course exactly where the BPA stand