Dispatches: Channel 4 at 8pm Tonight

bod1467

trisontana wrote: »

But Patrick insisted on Watchdog that it's just a coincidence that private tickets look like council ones. In fact he even said that councils could have copied private ones.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I just spluttered coffee on my keyboard, ya git!

Half_way

Regarding the information on the BPA website....
Would you expect anything else?
This is a Private trade association thats only there to further the aims of its members, all this consumer facing stuff like POPLA and the laughably titled know your parking rights stuff only exists to give the whole thing a false sense of legitimacy.

And As for Mr Troy, the blokes only doing his job, he is paid to represent the BPA and as such he will dance to his paymasters tune.
If he was to leave and take up a position with the Consumers Association he would probably just dance to another tune.
I can imagine that working in that role at the BPA certainly requires some creativity

Fergie76

matttye wrote: »

Have they ever said where £100 came from?

Seems like very few 'parking events' would result in a ticket for £100 being proportionate. They haven't specifically commented on GPEOL there either, just pulled a number out of thin air.

Maybe if you parked diagonally across four bays for a day in a busy car park, £100 would be proportionate.

Page 5 onwards....

http://nebula.wsimg.com/43296a814f12c9e884f29bdd5e3569ea?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

HO87

Some while ago, during the consultation period when what was to become the Protection of Freedoms Bill was being drawn up, Patrick Troy was giving evidence before the parliamentary select committee. In cross examination he admitted that the level of charges was placed at the level it was because it mirrored what was being charged by local authorities who were using decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE).

There was no mention then of genuine pre-estimate of loss and ne'er even the vaguest hint of commercial justification. The implication, from his evidence as a whole, was that the charge level had been selected because he wanted to see a unification of private and public parking enforcement in the future. After all Its only sensible that they charge similar amounts.

Apparently, the very considerable profits it helped ensure for his members was not a consideration. Honest.

Just yet another example of the BPA shamelessly changing its argument to suit either the audience or the prevailing legal wind. Look at how many different bodies the BPA has approached in an effort to secure what they would view as a favourable interpretation of GPEOL? Then along came commercial justification and they were off the hook...

Half_way

one thing that ive noticed, is that it appears that when you ask the BPA to take regulatory action they go to great lengths to state they are not a regulatory body.
when you complain to the DVLA it appears that they pass regulatory issues to the BPA

Fergie76

This is a response I've had previously from the DVLA:

This has been passed to the British Parking Association(BPA) to investigate. The BPA will be asked to provide a response and details of any actions they may pursue to the DVLA on completion of their investigation. If it is identified that data has been obtained in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 or Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, APCOA may lose their access to DVLA data.

Unfortunately, the DVLA cannot regulate the practices of private car parking companies. The Agency accredits trade associations to ensure that those who request information are legitimate companies that operate within an enforceable Code of Practice. Accredited Trade Associations (ATAs) have responsibility for ensuring compliance with their code of practice so when we receive an enquiry or complaint relating to the practices of a private parking company, we pass it to the relevant ATA to investigate and inform us of the outcome.

roddydogs

Surely the McDonalds ticket when he went to get a paper was a set-up, do they really have someone watching to see if someone goes to get a paper, & remember every car they came out of?

HO87

roddydogs wrote: »

Surely the McDonalds ticket when he went to get a paper was a set-up, do they really have someone watching to see if someone goes to get a paper, & remember every car they came out of?

Some of the so-called excesses of private parking companies seem so outrageous to be almost beyond belief. In the overall scheme of things in PPC World this is neither unusual nor excessive. Besides, at £100 a pop it would be well worth having a minimum wage wallah to keep his eyes peeled. Indeed, it would probably be very profitable.

bazster

bod1467 wrote: »

As an alternative spelling, yes.

OED agrees with me.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/judgement

I do wish people wouldn't quote the OED as though it were canonical. The OED describes how the language is used (however imperfectly), it is not a statute concerning how the language should be used. There is no such canon or statute regarding the English language and we are all free to disagree with the usages described in the OED.

bazster

roddydogs wrote: »

Surely the McDonalds ticket when he went to get a paper was a set-up, do they really have someone watching to see if someone goes to get a paper, & remember every car they came out of?

The MET weasel notes the details of all the vehicles in the car park and then goes into McD's and demands that all present account for their vehicles. Any vehicles unaccounted for will get ticketed.

This extraordinarily impertinent practice has been related often enough here and on PePiPoo for us to know it is their standard M.O. at McD's. We still don't know how they account for customers who are in the crapper, even less so if the incontinent customer in question is of a different gender to the parking weasel.

God only knows why anyone goes to McD's in order to be subjected to this kind of Big Brother surveillance.