Proceedings issued, NTK invalid, Gladstones/Millennium refusing to respond

twhitehousescat

roundels
ata = member of aproved trade orgaisation , needed to get access to dvla database , there are twi , the BPA and the IPC

oblong signs , corporate members , Xmas &*^%up and all that

any company can pay to join the IPC or BPA "^&*%UP "clubs , and can indeed go to both ^&%$UPs , however they can only be members of one approved trade assoc

Umkomaas

Let's get the acronyms straight.

ATA - Accredited Trade Association (just two in the private parking game - the BPA and the IPC)
AOS - Approved (BPA)/Accredited (IPC) Operator Scheme

Membership of the BPA/IPC ATA is a corporate-type membership (for want of a better term) and members would, I guess, receive general advisory updates, newsletters and the like, invitations to conferences/seminars etc from their respective ATA bodies. This membership is denoted by a rectangular/oblong box enclosing the respective ATA's logo. This membership does not give the parking organisation direct and automatic access to the DVLA database.

Membership of the ATA's Approved (BPA)/Accredited (IPC) Operator Scheme (AOS) is denoted by a roundel enclosing the respective ATA's logo and provides access to the DVLA database. This is the 'dangerous' one!

Loadsofchildren123

Umkomaas and Cat, thank you very much. My brain was feeling full up last night after all the information gathering I've been doing!
Below is a summary of what I have. What I'm not sure of its relevance to the claim itself (it may be relevant to a Data Protection counterclaim but I'm not convinced I want to devote more days researching and pursuing that - I have reserved the keeper's position in the Defence though!):
MDES was a member of BPA up until 18.11.15, when they then become member of IPA. Current list of BPA members doesn't mention them at all (ie doesn't say when they ceased to be a member), current list of IPA members does (and confirms date of becoming a member was 18.11.15).
Parking event was 31.10.15 (so they were in BPA then).
The landowner contract (dated 2014) has the round IPC logo and oblong BPA logo (indicating member of BPA and member of IPC's AOS).
The signage they claim was displayed at that time contains the same (BPA member and IPC's AOS member).
The signage NOW on the site - the entrance sign is different, it has no mention of IPC at all, just the oblong BPA logo and no round logo at all, but the logos on the signs inside are the same (oblong BPA member and round IPC's AOS member).
On their website the logos are also inconsistent:
on the Home page and on the page it takes you to when you click "pay a PCN" it has both the round and oblong logos just for IPC (no mention of BPA).
on the page it takes you to if you click "Parking Services" (one of the four businesses the group operates - this part of the website is for clients rather than PCN victims) it displays oblong logos for both BPA and IPC and no round one at all.
So the signage/contract claims that they have always been (at all material times relevant to this claim) corporate members of BPA and members of IPC's AOS. The signage/website now holds them out as being members of BPA when they are not.


Thinking this through logically:
1. Can a PPC be a member of the ATA's AOS without also being a member of the ATA itself?
2. If a PPC is a member of the ATA's AOS (and not also a corporate member), shouldn't the ATA's published list of members include the PPC? ie. if MDES was really a member of IPC's AOS pre-18.11.15 shouldn't they be shown on its list of members before that date?
3. If IPC's list of members should show MDES as members of the AOS pre-18.11.15 (but doesn't), can I rely on that to argue that the sign they are relying on now as the one on display on 31.1.0.15 is clearly not the right sign because they clearly were not then members of IPC.
4. I think I'll put in another Part 18 Request asking them about this - they'll refuse to answer it which will just make them look more and more evasive.
5. AS they are also STILL claiming to be corporate members of BPA when they are not (on their current signage and on their website), is it worth reporting this to BPA who won't be impressed their name is being used in this way (maybe they just won't care, but a complaint will make me feel better)
6. Which is the relevant code of practice for me to rely on to complain they're in breach of it? IPC's or BPA's? They claim to have been a member of IPC's AOS at the relevant time, but corporate members of BPA.
7. Bottom line: I am not sure what use this is in defending the claim, other than using it to show their sloppy approach to the truth and to best practice (and to suggest the sign they've produced may not be the right one). Or is this of any other use that I'm not seeing? I think it is more relevant to the Data Protection issues (which I'm not sure I have the energy to pursue)

Loadsofchildren123

Just another thought. Can I make a Freedom of Information Act request to BPA and/or IPC? Are they bodies who are bound by it?


This may be clutching at straws but another thought I had was to read the Memorandum and Articles of Association of MDES, which say what activities the company has been formed (and is therefore authorised) to carry out. I wonder if they are actually permitted by the Companies Act to pursue parking management activities at all. Not sure I can get this document without having to pay for it though.

Loadsofchildren123

Bingo.
email from BPA received this morning:


The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Corporate Membership (separate to the Approved Operators Scheme) and companies can choose whether they wish to be a Corporate Member of the BPA whilst still being able to be a member of the IPC’s Accredited Operators Scheme when they are involved in parking enforcement. Being a Corporate Member of the BPA does not mean a company is accredited.

BPA Corporate members can use the BPA logo but not the roundel of BPA Approved Operator Scheme logo as below:-

[cid:image005.jpg@01D28900.9AD6CF20]

Millennium Door & Event Security Ltd t/as Millennium Parking Services are a Corporate Member of the BPA and therefore can use the blue BPA logo as below:-

[this is the round BPA logo]

As this company is a member of the IPC’s Accredited Operator Scheme they are required to follow the IPC Code of Practice, not the BPA AOS Code of Practice.

Millennium Door & Event Security Ltd t/as Millennium Parking Services stopped being a member of our Approved Operator Scheme on the 09/11/2015.

If you would like more information regarding the parking charge or the processes employed by IPC please refer to the IPC website at www.theipc.info<http://www.theipc.info>

If you have any evidence of the incorrect use of the above logos please provide photographic evidence of this to enable us to look into the matter further.

Loadsofchildren123

So Millennium are displaying the round BPA logo on the entrance sign, and claiming on their website to be accredited by BPA (although not displaying the round log). I've reported this to BPA with photos.

I've asked BPA the questions set out below. If the answers confirm that Millennium was a member of BAP's AOS until 9.11.15, and didn't become a member of IPC's AOS until 1811.15 (the date IPC's list of members said it joined), then this MUST mean that the sign they claim is the one displayed on 31.10.15 (the date of the parking event) is NOT the correct one, it is a later version, because it has the round IPC logo not the round BPA logo (the use of the wrong roundel indicating that they were members of IPC's AOS must mean that the sign post-dates November 2015).

My questions to BPA:
1. Millennium was a member of your AOS until 9.11.15, after which it became a member of IPC's AOS. Until 9.11.15 it was entitled to use your round logo showing it was a member of BPA's AOS. After that date it has not been entitled to display/use that logo.

2. Millennium continues to be a "corporate member" of BPA (which entitles them to use the oblong version of BPA's logo, rather than the round one).

3. Is the list of members on your website a list of the members of the AOS, rather than a list of corporate members (because Millennium is not on there, although it remains a corporate member)? Is that the same for IPC (ie the ATA's list of members is the members of its AOS rather than its corporate members)?

4. Is it possible for a parking company to be a member of both AOS's at the same time, BPA's and IPC's, or just one?

5. I assume it is possible to be a corporate member of both ATAs (BPA and IPC) at the same time.

6. I assume it is possible to be a member of one ATA's AOS (in this case IPC's) and a corporate member of another ATA (in this case BPA).

7. Until 9.11.15 when it ceased to be a member of BPA's AOS, was Millennium bound by BPA's code of practice? It is of course now a member of IPC's AOS and must follow IPC's code of practice, but I am concerned with a period of time pre-9.11.15 when they were a member of your AOS.

Loadsofchildren123

I know that some seasoned advisors on this forum say that the criminality/planning permission argument may well not hold water if the council isn't taking enforcement action (or at least investigating).
The council has called to say it is now investigating and going to inspect the site. I think it would help to persuade them to take some sort of action (if only forcing Millennium to apply for permission retrospectively) if other people lodged complaints. I know there are other people with Millennium tickets at this site (Copper Quarter) who would benefit from the council taking action.
Anyone can complain, not just those in receipt of tickets. If anyone feels so inclined to jump on this bandwagon, this is the link to the complaints form:
http://www.swansea.gov.uk/article/10217/Planning-enforcement-complaint-form
The location is Copper Quarter, Swansea
The map grid reference is:
51.6403339079,-3.9276934147
Occupier/owner: Barratt Homes
The operational development is: residential development, where a private parking company has erected numerous signs/advertisements
Date works started is in or about 2014
In the evidence section I've attached photos, but you just need to say that you do not know visitor numbers, but are aware that there are numerous signs erected all around the site, including many attached to lamp posts which are presumably a trespass to council property
The harm caused is that its a criminal offence under Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended)

Loadsofchildren123

BPA have responded to my questions. Using the same numbering as in post #77 (my comments in square brackets]. for convenience my questions are repeated:

1. Millennium was a member of your AOS until 9.11.15, after which it became a member of IPC's AOS. Until 9.11.15 it was entitled to use your round logo showing it was a member of BPA's AOS. After that date it has not been entitled to display/use that logo.
This is correct After that date it is not entitled to display/use that logo. After this date, we give a three month grace period to remove any BPA AOS roundels from any stationary, signage and multi media sites
[so they are not entitled to use the roundel BPA sign which they are currently displaying on the sign at the entrance to the site - not much help to me other than to demonstrate their disregard for following the proper processes]

2. Millennium continues to be a "corporate member" of BPA (I understand this entitles them to use the oblong version of BPA's logo, rather than the round one).
[they haven't answered this, it was me stating the facts, they'd have said if they disagreed]

3. Does your list of members on your website mean members of the AOS rather than corporate members (because Millennium is not on there, although it remains a corporate member)? Is that the same for IPC (ie the ATA's list of members is the members of its AOS rather than its corporate members?)
Only those parking operators who are an AOS member will appear on the BPA AOS list of Approved Operators – please refer to the IPC directly to ensure you are advised correctly in relation to their membership practice.
[IPC's list of members says Millennium joined 18.11.15 which clearly indicates it's a list of AOS members rather than just corporate members but I will check]

4. Is it possible for a parking company to be a member of both AOS's at the same time, BPA's and IPC's, or just one?
Just one
[Bingo for me - this shows that they cannot have been in the IPC AOS on 31.10.15 and therefore the sign they claim is the one displayed at that time cannot be the true sign (because it contains the IPA roundel indicating it was a member of IPC's AOS which it cannot have been)]

5. I assume it is possible to be a corporate member of both ATAs (BPA and IPC) at the same time.
Yes as we are both primarily membership associations. Neither organisation has any legal authority.
[not really relevant to my argument, I just wanted the full picture]

6. I assume it is possible to be a member of one ATA's AOS (in this case IPC's) and a corporate member of another ATA (in this case BPA).
Yes
[ditto comment under 5 above]

7. Until 9.11.15 when it ceased to be a member of BPA's AOS, was Millennium bound by BPA's code of practice?
Yes – Please be advised however that as we are not a regulator the AOAS Code is not a legal document and does not provide a way for a driver to challenge how a landowner or operator has applied parking control and enforcement on private land.
It is of course now a member of IPC's AOS and must follow IPC's code of practice, but I am concerned with a period of time pre-9.11.15 when they were a member of your AOS.
If a charge was issued whilst a BPA AOS member the applicable Code would be that of the BPA AOS Scheme

8. Millennium is using your round logo on a sign at the site, and claim on their website to be accredited by BPA which would seem to be incorrect.
This matter will be addressed by our investigations team – The BPA is not a regulatory body and this company is NOT a BPA AOS member.

Loadsofchildren123

Anyone know off the top of their head, I think there is a case (is it Beavis) where the court said that as the Secretary of State hadn't issued any regulations under para 10 of POFA Sched 4, then the AOS code of conduct should be treated as such regulations and the PPC must therefore abide by that code (rather than just trying to....). this obviously makes any breaches of the code much more significant.
Or have I dreamt this?

Loadsofchildren123

I have looked into the companies law aspect of this.
The Memorandum of Association, which say what activities the company is allowed to pursue, are for "a General Commercial Company", so I think they are pretty much allowed under that to do anything (although the Companies House overview of the company describes the nature of the business as "private security services").


I googled the question and found an accountancy website forum where they are debating one company pursuing different types of business - they are saying that for tax purposes the different types of business have to be accounted for separately because you are not, for instance, allowed to claim reliefs/losses between two unconnected parts of the business. Millennium is a textbook example of this - they have a door security business, an event security business, a security business and a training business (which the website confirms is security training). Then they have the parking services part of the business, which is clearly entirely separate from the other parts of the business which all relate to security.
HMRC would therefore require the company to segregate the revenues and expenses of the different areas of the business, quarantining profits and losses, for accounting purposes.
This therefore explains why MPS is treated by the company as a separate entity - which was my initial guess- for administrative and accounting purposes.
I don't really want to have to start digging more into this, it is just a bit of background which explains to me and the court why MPS is being treated by MDES as an entity in its own right, but unfortunately they have taken it too far and allowed it to sign a contract with a landowner (and presumably others, I just know of this one) and also to hold itself out as capable of forming contracts with drivers, when it actually has no legal personality.