Watchdog Tonight: Troy Refuses Interview

Parking-Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html


I think the company is PCM-UK, but if anyone knows differently, please chip in.

enfield_freddy

"Of the other two parking companies featured in watchdog, one was ParkingEye and the other was managing Lusty Glaze in Cornwall, so was presumably one of the Cornish companies, such as Armtrac,"




parking eye = capita = BBC connections? , must be the first ever expos! , not to inc the companies name , or put a photo of there boss up on the screen

hartley_hare

Interesting programme, but I thought there could have been a bit more general advice for people - such as don't pay, do some research, never ring the companies, ignore debt collection letters etc. The stuff you see on this forum all the time!

Edna_Basher

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

I think the company is PCM-UK, but if anyone knows differently, please chip in.

I think you're right, Pranky. Your screenshot of the reference to Chobham Manor on their notice board ties in with this thread from someone who received a PCN from PCM-UK there.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5217735

enfield_freddy

hartley_hare wrote: »

Interesting programme, but I thought there could have been a bit more general advice for people - such as don't pay, do some research, never ring the companies, ignore debt collection letters etc. The stuff you see on this forum all the time!

HOW , can the BBC say those things!


"big Brother" (wink wink) is watching them


how can you hurt the hand that feeds you , remember crapita , collect (and prosecute) all tv licence money , which the BBC say they desperately need .


after watching the footage several times , I have to wonder why there was no "name and shame" , very unusual for watchdog?

trisontana

If it does turn out to be PCM-UK , I wonder what the company will say about the way their staff operates. I suppose it will be the usual "management-denial speak" of "it was just a couple of rogue members of staff who have now been disciplined and sent for further training".

Captain_Leaky

PPCs response to the programme.

"
Private parking

Company response


The Independent Parking Committee (IPC) said:

write in response to your letter of 19 May 2015 regarding concerns your viewers have over the practices of some of the BPA’s members, specifically unfair parking charges and a range of mitigating circumstances motorists felt had been unfairly ignored by the parking company involved.
Mitigation
It is a characteristic of the British legal system that mitigation is considered at only one level in any one case. As far as the statutory provisions for appeals from enforcement of parking and traffic contraventions on the highway is concerned, mitigation is considered at the level of the enforcement authority.
The adjudicators at the statutory appeals bodies, Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) and the Scottish and Northern Ireland Appeals bodies are prevented by law from allowing an appeal solely on the grounds of mitigation. Where the adjudicator considers there is a compelling case on grounds of mitigation, the case may be referred back to the enforcement authority with a recommendation for a reconsideration of the case. It is then up to the enforcement authority to decide whether or not to accept that recommendation.
POPLA has adopted an almost identical approach and will not allow appeals solely on the grounds of mitigation. As with the statutory scheme, though, where assessors consider there is a compelling case, they will refer back the case to the operator with a recommendation to reconsider. These cases are referred to in the POPLA annual reports available on the POPLA website.
This common approach is both consistent with British legal practises and minimises any confusions between statutory appeals relating to highway contraventions and appeals relating to parking on private land.
POPLA
Since POPLA’s launch by the BPA on October 1st 2012 over 65,000 appeals have been submitted. The 65,000 appeals heard at POPLA equates to around 1% of tickets issued. This is broadly in line with the proportion of appeals received by both PATAS and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Of those appeals, 49% are won by the motorist and 51% by the operator.
POPLA offers motorists a simple, free appeals service for parking tickets issued on private land, something the BPA and Operators have been seeking for years and have forever changed the way in which people see and perceive the management of parking on private land.
POPLA is independent of the BPA and both the private land operator and the motorist, as are the Assessors who decide the Appeal. In September 2013, we transformed POPLA governance with the creation an Independent Scrutiny Board (ISB), now the Independent Scrutiny for Parking Appeals on Private Land (ISPA) which oversees and guarantee the service’s absolute independence.
There is clear evidence of the BPA and its membership engaging with all stakeholders and driving the development of a more regulated and professional service for managing parking on private land. We continue to lobby for POPLA’s adoption in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as throughout the UK to make it available to all motorists, including those who park at railway stations, airports and other places, where POPLA may not currently be available.
We believe that further regulation is needed, and are calling for government to establish a single standard setting body (SSB), a single code of practice and a single appeals service. This would be in the interests of consumers and the entire parking sector, building on the foundations the BPA established by launching its Approved Operators Scheme (AOS) in 2007 and Code of Practice for Parking on Private Land which became the model for Accredited Trade Associations (ATA).
The new government can grasp the opportunity to really make a difference by introducing some light touch regulation in order to deliver a better deal for both motorists and landowners. Continuing with multiple codes of practice, multiple appeals services, and variable auditing and sanctions regimes is unfair and confusing for motorists and businesses alike.
The BPA has works to raise standards, eradicate rogue operators and make parking a recognised profession and will continue to do so. We believe in putting the consumer at the heart of any solution and we believe that our proposals will meet any consumer concerns about the private parking sector and lead to higher standards and comprehensive independent redress.
Your Programme
POPLA is an independent service and it is not for the BPA to comment on its decisions. The identification by your researchers of three cases of mitigating factors does not seem to me to be an indication of anything fundamentally wrong with how parking operators deal with individual cases though I appreciate are frustrating outcomes for the individuals concerned.
This combined with the fact that two of the companies identified are not members of the BPA means that I will decline your invitation to appear on your programme on this occasion.

trisontana

I think you are confusing the BPA with the IPC

bod1467

Erm ... why did the IPC write all that about the BPA and POPLA, and say they wouldn't appear on the programme when the IPC plainly DID appear?

Ivor_Pecheque

Feel free to join in the debate.... https://www.facebook.com/groups/NewerNewquay/permalink/846025585434314/