Why are some PPCs still with the BPA?

Mike172

I dont get it. With IAS being the so called rubber-stamp and POPLA being so easy to win at using easily available forum advice why would any PPC remain under the BPA and not move to IPC.

Seems strange. I know what I would do if I were running a PPC.

TDA

Mike172 wrote: »

I dont get it. With IAS being the so called rubber-stamp and POPLA being so easy to win at using easily available forum advice why would any PPC remain under the BPA and not move to IPC.

Seems strange. I know what I would do if I were running a PPC.

Given that the BPA have previously demonstrated that they have the government's ear, to an extent, I would suggest that those jumping ship to the IPC are being rather short-sighted.

Surely only a matter of time before the IPC is shown to be even more of a member's club than the BPA, with decisions being in no way independent.

Half_way

another issue is that even if the IAS/IPC are a rubber stamp outfit, every ludicrous decision they make should be another nail on the coffin for the IPC.

Even if ( or should that be when ) the IAS rule in favour of the PPC motorists are under no obligation to pay up

Umkomaas

Even if ( or should that be when ) the IAS rule in favour of the PPC motorists are under no obligation to pay up

And they cannot possibly take every ignoring Tom, !!!!!! and Harriett to court, without the serious risk of blowing their entire business model totally out of the water!

Fight_the_good_fight

I believe that some of the PPC's may have it written into their contracts with the landowners they must be part of BPA so until they renogiate their contracts they are unable to jump ship

hoohoo

A question Patrick trousers on fire is no doubt asking himself daily. The BPA strategy of pushing for a change in the law has backfired spectacularly. Their weasel accomplices the DVLA have for so long washed their hands of all misdeeds in the parking sector that the BPA cannot complain the DVLA is not enforcing high enough standards of their rivals the IPC.

Ho hum.

Aaron_Aadvark

Remember that POPLA appeals only account for 1 or 2% of charges and only half of appeals are sucessful. POPLA is therefore only an irritant to the PPCs.

It also has the effect of identifting those who understand the fact that their charges are legally highly dubious and therefore capable of mounting a credible legal defence. This avoids them wasted debt collection and legal effort. It also helps them to target their legal efforts on the more vulnerable, with whom they have a greater chance of sucess, improving their court "averages" and therefore implying more justification for their charges.

Finally, POPLA does provide the PPCs with a veneer of respectability with the Government.

POPLA does a good job of managing appeal results. If nearer to 100% of appeals were refused then it would be clear that POPLA was a PPC rubber stamping exercise a la IPC. If nearer 100% of appeals were allowed it would clearly expose the lie that the fake fines were justified. But around 50% allows the BPA Ltd to claim that the fake fines are justified whilst acknowleging that a small number (to their minds) of genuinly improperly issued charges are cancelled, thus demonstating the industry's "responsible" side.

hoohoo

Aaron_Aadvark wrote: »

Remember that POPLA appeals only account for 1 or 2% of charges and only half of appeals are sucessful. POPLA is therefore only an irritant to the PPCs.

This is true yet it is surprising how het up the PPCs get about POPLA. A truly business oriented PPC would not bother defending any POPLA appeal which they could not win.

Umkomaas

hoohoo wrote: »

This is true yet it is surprising how het up the PPCs get about POPLA. A truly business oriented PPC would not bother defending any POPLA appeal which they could not win.

PE and Smart seem to be doing just that.

hoohoo

Umkomaas wrote: »

PE and Smart seem to be doing just that.

While SRS, who apparently cannot bear to see a single penny slip through his grubby fingers, has moved Excel, VCS and Conkai over to the IPC. Says a lot about his mentality.

Mike172

This post cropped up after posting this thread.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/popla-board-raises-issues.html

One user in the comments section writes:

So now it's all down to when the BPA and POPLA will cease to exist. I know if I were a parking operator where my best interests would lie and it wouldn't be with the BPA so are we about to see them fold.

Which is my point. Especially when POPLA are now complaining about their funding and are well aware of the PPC's 'forum shopping' to see IAS and POPLA results and work out which works best for them.

Whether or not IAS can be ignored it is un-nerving for anyone who hasnt been through the process before to receive debt collection letters and NTK's with big red lettering that look legit. I was worried sick when I had my first PCN's and NTK's as £100 isnt an amount I could easily give away for nothing in return. I also like the fact it costs PPCs about £35 a pop after providing a POPLA number and other things for no positive result which has turned the whole thing, for me, into a game.

Even now I would not want letters from DRP or any other company claiming they are debt collectors. Or have the threat of court action on my mind no matter how simple it would be to have a ticket over turned.

Going to look for standardised complaints to the DVLA once ive received my POPLA decisions as I think its important I make the effort to complain especially after the work the regulars have put into this section. The least I can do....