More BPA and DVLA bashing on TV tonight

trisontana

A follow up BBC news article here:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30828794

grant_uk

trisontana wrote: »

A follow up BBC news article here:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30828794

And once again, ParkingEye say "the charges sought from drivers were 'not punitive' but 'set on the basis of a strong commercial justification for charges of this nature'."

In which case they would be foolish to offer lower charges for early payment, of course. If the initial charge was an accurate representative of the costs they incur from overstaying motorists, then any discount would mean they would be taking a substantial loss.

That point should be raised more often when TV/radio interviewers cover the subject.

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

A follow up BBC news article here:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30828794

Same old trot from the DVLA.

But a DVLA spokesman said: "We take our responsibility to protect information seriously.

Same old trot from PE.

It said the charge sought from drivers were "not punitive" but "set on the basis of a strong commercial justification for charges of this nature".

trisontana

"A local mugger was quoted as saying there was a strong commercial justification for him robbing people as he needs the money to feed his drug habit."

Guys_Dad

trisontana wrote: »

"A local mugger was quoted as saying there was a strong commercial justification for him robbing people as he needs the money to feed his drug habit."

At least when the M-A-F-I-A cause people to be injured or worse, they usually have a contract.

And when they used the concrete filled dustbins in Chicago, that contract was watertight.

BlackSpangle

The whole "commercial justification" thing puzzles me.

It's not the business of the courts to sustain a given business model.

So I don't get it when PPCs say "Oh, we have to charge that or we don't make money". Err, so what? Why is it a public duty to ensure that PE/CEL/Excel/et al make money?

If their normal, legal activities enable them to generate a profit, fine and dandy. If they need to resort to spurious constructions of costs to make non-existent losses seem real, then the courts have no business upholding those penalties - whether that causes the PPC to go out of business or not.

The argument "Oh, it might be a load of garbage, but we need that fiction to stay in business" seems utterly bankrupt to me.

bazster

Absolutely. That they chose a legally-unsustainable business model is their problem, there is no reason why the law should effectively be changed to suit them. Other business models are available (albeit not so profitable).

fil_cad

I hope Barry Beavis wins his case, id love PE to be blown of the face of the earth, and to follow that the condems being booted out in may. :beer: :j

ManxRed

DVLA quote

"If it is brought to our attention that a company does not meet the necessary standards, we will investigate. If the allegations are proven we will stop the release of keeper information to them."

Sadly, that's not true, is it DVLA?

Fergie76

Exactly, Manx. DVLA's idea of investigating is getting the BPA to do it for them.