"Pickles warns rogue firms"

The_Deep

Thank you Mr B, you beat me to it.

I am by no mean a pedant, nor a grammarian, but Freddie seems a very well grounded sort of chap, he writes a great deal of sense. Why, when it has been pointed out to him, does he continue to offend?

Is not repeatedly making the same mistake, and expecting a different result, one definition of insanity?

I am sure that EF is not insane, so why does he not address this issue?

polyplastic

I have every confidence that Mr Pickles will continue to rail against rogue parking companies. I have substantially less confidence that he will put his assurances into effect. Only a few weeks ago a complaint went to Mr Pickles, personally, following his confirmation in the Mail on Sunday that he was to clamp down on rogue parking companies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713646/We-curb-parking-cowboys-says-Cabinet-Minister-Victory-Mail-campaign-official-probe-launched-bully-boys.html

The complaint highlighted the extent to which ParkingEye had been conducting a criminal parking operation, confirmed by the Local Authority which had threatened to prosecute ParkingEye. What happened?

Well he passed the complaint to the DVLA who said that everything was actually hunkydory because the BPA said it was.

This was the response.....not from Mr Pickles....but from the DVLA............



Thank you for your email of 5 February to Eric Pickles MP, concerning the release of vehicle keeper information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) vehicle register. It has been passed to me to reply because of my particular responsibilities in relation to Data Protection and the disclosure of information.

Firstly I would like to clarify that the DVLA does not regulate the private parking industry. The DVLA’s role in this context is to provide vehicle keeper data where the requestor demonstrates reasonable cause to receive it. The issue of adherence to planning requirements lies outside DVLA’s responsibilities and any alleged offences relating to Planning should be referred to the local authority.

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 (CoP). 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.

As you are aware the issues you raised have previously been brought to our attention and referred to the British Parking Association (BPA) for investigations, who have found no breach of its CoP. The DVLA have had sight of the BPA’s investigation, and are satisfied it has been carried out correctly.

There has been no indication of any misuse of DVLA data, nor has there been any suggestion that anyone has been convicted of any offences. The criminal offences that you allege relate to planning laws and are for the Local Authority to investigate.

I hope this explains the Agency’s position in this matter.

Yours sincerely

Paul Johnson

Data Sharing Policy

Strategy, Policy and Communications Directorate


So, even though the BPA COP states that parking companies have to comply with the law and ParkingEye was well and truely in breach of the law there was no breach of the COP!

Well done Mr Pickles.....talks a good talk and that's about it............It's just business as usual...but some folk will of course believe the rhetoric

Polyplastic

Redx

it could be that replies like these are what prompted the latest changes, so that he has direct control to stop all this buck passing, I like to think so

Guys_Dad

enfield_freddy wrote: »

almost as bad as the church having shares in Wonga ,

They never did. Check the facts.

enfield_freddy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

They never did. Check the facts.

yes they got rid of £750,000 of shares on 11 July 2014 , after it became public knowledge in July 2013

Guys_Dad

enfield_freddy wrote: »

yes they got rid of £750,000 of shares on 11 July 2014 , after it became public knowledge

Not so. They dis-invested from an investment company that, in turn, invested in Wonga see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28257351

There is a world of difference. It is exactly like you taking out an ISA with, say Barclays, and Barclays in turn investing with Wonga.

That means you invested in Wonga?

enfield_freddy

ok , lets rephrase this , the church was recieving dividends from Wonga , but the normal clerics did not know that the church commission had invested monies via a third party that went to Wonga


however when it became public knowledge , in July 2013 they sold or got rid of there shares , and cut all ties in July 2014 .


and as your clearly point out in your link The statement added: "We no longer have any financial or any other interest in Wonga." (suggests they did)


to summarise , the church had shares in Wonga , until they were made public and had to get rid or upset lots of people

Umkomaas

polyplastic wrote: »

I have every confidence that Mr Pickles will continue to rail against rogue parking companies. I have substantially less confidence that he will put his assurances into effect. Only a few weeks ago a complaint went to Mr Pickles, personally, following his confirmation in the Mail on Sunday that he was to clamp down on rogue parking companies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713646/We-curb-parking-cowboys-says-Cabinet-Minister-Victory-Mail-campaign-official-probe-launched-bully-boys.html

The complaint highlighted the extent to which ParkingEye had been conducting a criminal parking operation, confirmed by the Local Authority which had threatened to prosecute ParkingEye. What happened?

Well he passed the complaint to the DVLA who said that everything was actually hunkydory because the BPA said it was.

This was the response.....not from Mr Pickles....but from the DVLA............



Thank you for your email of 5 February to Eric Pickles MP, concerning the release of vehicle keeper information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) vehicle register. It has been passed to me to reply because of my particular responsibilities in relation to Data Protection and the disclosure of information.

Firstly I would like to clarify that the DVLA does not regulate the private parking industry. The DVLA’s role in this context is to provide vehicle keeper data where the requestor demonstrates reasonable cause to receive it. The issue of adherence to planning requirements lies outside DVLA’s responsibilities and any alleged offences relating to Planning should be referred to the local authority.

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 (CoP). 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.

As you are aware the issues you raised have previously been brought to our attention and referred to the British Parking Association (BPA) for investigations, who have found no breach of its CoP. The DVLA have had sight of the BPA’s investigation, and are satisfied it has been carried out correctly.

There has been no indication of any misuse of DVLA data, nor has there been any suggestion that anyone has been convicted of any offences. The criminal offences that you allege relate to planning laws and are for the Local Authority to investigate.

I hope this explains the Agency’s position in this matter.

Yours sincerely

Paul Johnson

Data Sharing Policy

Strategy, Policy and Communications Directorate


So, even though the BPA COP states that parking companies have to comply with the law and ParkingEye was well and truely in breach of the law there was no breach of the COP!

Well done Mr Pickles.....talks a good talk and that's about it............It's just business as usual...but some folk will of course believe the rhetoric

Polyplastic

I think I'd be tempted to send this reply from the DVLA to Eric Pickles to highlight how even a case referred by him to the DVLA has been subjected to buck-passing and avoidance of responsibility in the context of regulation.

The PPCs know no one 'governs' and they continue to operate knowing that there is nothing that anyone can/will do. What chance has the man in the street (who Eric will be looking to for future employment beyond May)?

Guys_Dad

enfield_freddy wrote: »

ok , lets rephrase this , the church was recieving dividends from Wonga , but the normal clerics did not know that the church commission had invested monies via a third party that went to Wonga


however when it became public knowledge , in July 2013 they sold or got rid of there shares , and cut all ties in July 2014 .


and as your clearly point out in your link The statement added: "We no longer have any financial or any other interest in Wonga." (suggests they did)


to summarise , the church had shares in Wonga , until they were made public and had to get rid or upset lots of people

The church did NOT have shares in Wonga. They invested in a venture capital company that helped start up companies. The church did not micro-manage the venture capital company's investments.

At some point, the venture capital company invested some money in Wonga, and about £75,000 of that money was apportioned to the Church Commissioners who had made a total investment of £5 - £6 million with the venture capitalists.

Again, you show how little you actually know of this when you claim that the church was receiving dividends from Wonga. They neither received any dividends from Wonga nor from the venture capital company's investment in Wonga.

My responses are purely to correct the insinuations implied in your flippant post at 12.16. Whilst I admire your enthusiasm and energy in fighting the enemy (the PPCs), it does help to be a little more accurate in your posts as I have noticed some wide of the mark points you have made since you joined in the campaign.

enfield_freddy

The church did NOT have shares in Wonga. They invested in a venture capital company that helped start up companies. The church did not micro-manage the venture capital company's investments.


unlike the UK government that did not use middlemen , and gave a £100,000 grant as startup to PE and held 8% of there shares





hang on , before we get back on the topic , the chuch was all smug and slagging Wonga off to the press , saying how bad they were.


If I had tied a tenth of that amount up , I would have checked out who it was going to , the church is a big organisation , they cound,t work it out? , and then a newspaper man uncovers the truth ?


I actually believe they knew dammed well who they had invested in , and were embarrassed , and had to back track .


back to Mr Pickles now please