12 guinee pigs required

enfield_freddy

right PE are failing to issue popla codes ,


BPA paperwork


http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/140629_-_AOS_Code_of_Practice_-_Contraventions_and_Sanctions.pdf


section 4.16


4.16
Persistent [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]failure to abide by the processes and requirements of POPLA [/FONT][/FONT]including non-provision of a valid POPLA Code.


is a level 4 offence , and I quote:





Level 4: [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]These contraventions are likely to occur when the operator’s actions have disregarded some fundamental part of the Code, and have a serious impact on the parking event. A Level 4 contravention will result in the imposition of 5 Sanction Points. DVLA will be notified of the application of a Level 4 contravention, and a plan for immediate rectification is required. [/FONT][/FONT]


so I think 12 people should do , that seems to be persistant


game on , anyone else playing?

HO87

Noble effort but the BPA can and will find every reason to exonerate their largest corporate member - and therefore principal funder. Trouserfire is not going to consign his desk, and him with it, to the recycle bin when the "out" is not difficult to see.

POPLA are putting all PE appeals on hold pending judgment in the Beavis case. With that in mind PE will undoubtedly argue that by issuing POPLA codes now that could well expire during the "hold" period they would be preventing appeals rather than facilitating them.

That is not to say that I agree with there being a "hold" in any event as few appeals rely solely on issues flowing off the back of Beavis. Attempting to game PPC's and the BPA on a tilted table - of their own design - is unlikely to succeed IMO as we have seen time and time again.

enfield_freddy

however PE ARE refusing to idssue POPLA codes , and as fas as I can see the code of practice issued by the BPA has not been amended in the last few weeks to exclude PE


therefore they ARE breaking BPA rules and MUST be sanctioned


no pushing under the table , there rules are BINDING in being a member ,

bazster

You haven't been following. The BPA doesn't have "binding" rules. Regardless of what is written the BPA makes it up as it goes along.

peter_the_piper

So its a bit like the Pirates Code, not rules but more like guidelines. Quite appropriate.

enfield_freddy

and interestingly level 6 sanctions


Level 6: [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]These contraventions occur where the operator has been convicted of criminal law in respect of his operation or where the operator has seriously abused or misused DVLA Data. Level 6 contraventions will result in the imposition of 12 Sanction Points, DVLA will be notified of level 6 contraventions and a report to the Professional Conduct Committee submitted. Operator will be suspended while the PCC report is being considered [/FONT][/FONT]


LEVEL 6
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]6.1 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Non payment of AOS membership fees or other subscriptions, that are required per the terms of payment arrangements. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]6.2 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Sustained and or intentional abuse / or misuse of DVLA Data [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]6.3 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]A conviction under the Protections of Freedom Act Legislation. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]6.4 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Clamping and/or removal without lawful authority [/FONT][/FONT]


[/FONT]hello , CEL

Herzlos

HO87 wrote: »

POPLA are putting all PE appeals on hold pending judgment in the Beavis case. With that in mind PE will undoubtedly argue that by issuing POPLA codes now that could well expire during the "hold" period they would be preventing appeals rather than facilitating them.

But that's clearly nonsense - the expiration is on making the appeal, once it's in it can sit for as long as it takes before being investigated.

The only way anyone should be accepting a POPLA code refusal is if they have it in writing that one will be issued when they are off hold, and a promise that proceedings are also held.

Coupon-mad

If POPLA cases are stayed for Beavis then they will have to be stayed for months and months as the losing party may well take the matter higher. It would only be fair, if Beavis goes the wrong way for consumers at the CoA, that the Lead Adjudicator extends the same courtesy to consumers as he did to PE.

enfield_freddy

being more in the "know" than most on here (inc me) is there any "legal" comeback or serious government repercussions that the BPA may have , by amending there rules to suit one party (pe) , I am thinking more of the allowing not to issue POPLA codes within there required time frame of a reply to there first threatening letter and the customers rebuttal.

Computersaysno

Guinea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There, that feels better.

enfield_freddy

yup , but it got you to read it!