Interesting Changes Afoot to the BPA Code of Practice.

Umkomaas

Whether these are in anticipation of the DCLG consultation results, or as an attempt to head them off, or maybe they've just been tipped off - time will tell. Some of these changes are interesting.

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=6037.0

daveyjp

Rules with no sanction aren't worth having.

BPA still need members subscriptions so they are unlikely to increase their activity in banning rogue operators.

Handbags-at-dawn

Paragraph 15.4 is a bit of a shocker. It's under the Debt Reovery section, and permits the selling of any outstanding debt to third parties.

Unfortunately it doesn't make it clear that an unpaid demand for a parking charge isn't an "outstanding debt" until it's been admitted or proved in a court of law. Few, if any, will have been admitted. So basically, what they represent - and what is being offered for sale - is a bare right to sue.

A right to sue cannot be assigned to a third party with no connection to the case. Before the BPA made their evident approval of champerty and maintenance so public, they would have been well advised to read the Prankster's blogs on MIL Collections' unsuccessful roboclaims, as well HO's posts on the subject both on here and Pepipoo.

Or maybe they should increase their membership fees so they can afford the services of a decent lawyer.

The_Deep

Will this mean PPCs will have to change their signs?

beamerguy

Interesting thoughts ?

For this to work, it would require the secondary Sham ATA to do the same, doubt the Gladstones boys would want to do that.

If the code of practice is not identical, the BPA will lose members
The ideal situation would be to close the IPC as they have been proven to be a sham

Interesting points about this new COP

23.1c Before serving a Letter Before Claim
Operators take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the person being written to is the correct party
Surely this would mean that if someone discovers a CCJ without them knowing, they could then ask the court for proof which would place the onus on the operator

15.4 You may sell any outstanding debt to third parties
However If you do this, we believe that you maintain responsibility for the ticket that was originally issued and therefore you must make every endeavour to ensure the third party keeps to the Code as if you were carrying out the tasks. If the third party does not keep to the Code, this failure will be treated as an act of non-compliance by you.
The methods of companies like MIL would create non-compliance against the operator.
It would not be viable to sell on the fake debts

23.1d Debt Recovery follow the principals of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
As companies like DRP make up the rules as they go along with their fabrications and lies, maybe the time will come when instead of ignoring the likes of DRP, the advice would be to send such letters directly to the FCA, in particular the "rent a solicitors letterhead"

This new code will be costly for operators to apply and gives the motorist many more arguments against the operator

BUT, unless the DCLG applies the same code to the sham IPC, it will mean a mass exodus from the BPA to the IPC

Let's see how smart the DCLG really are.
First logical step is to get rid of the IPC as a ATA

peter_the_piper

Interesting there was no mention of double dipping (unless I missed it) and efforts to prevent it.

beamerguy

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Interesting there was no mention of double dipping (unless I missed it) and efforts to prevent it.

guess they try to cover that here

21.2 Quality checks: before you make a vehicle keeper detail request to the DVLA you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. On receipt of the data from the DVLA further checks must be undertaken.

21.5 We have an expectation that when operators are using cameras to manage parking, they will sign up to the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s Code of Practice and adopt the Guiding Principles which are detailed in Appendix F of the Code.

Handbags-at-dawn

@Beamerguy: introducing these changes won''t trigger a mass exodus to the IPC. Since when has the BPA insisted upon its members abiding by their CoP in any meaningful way? It's not the CoP that causes PPCs to leave the BPA. They do it to get away from POPLA in favour of the IAS.

So....Hands up all those who think these changes are mostly for cosmetic purposes?

peter_the_piper

beamerguy wrote: »

guess they try to cover that here

21.2 Quality checks: before you make a vehicle keeper detail request to the DVLA you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. On receipt of the data from the DVLA further checks must be undertaken.

21.5 We have an expectation that when operators are using cameras to manage parking, they will sign up to the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s Code of Practice and adopt the Guiding Principles which are detailed in Appendix F of the Code.

Probably right.
I can just see them, "Hey Fred, there's other pics of them going in and out. Good Quality? Yes! Ok delete them"

beamerguy

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

@Beamerguy: introducing these changes won''t trigger a mass exodus to the IPC. Since when has the BPA insisted upon its members abiding by their CoP in any meaningful way? It's not the CoP that causes PPCs to leave the BPA. They do it to get away from POPLA in favour of the IAS.

So....Hands up all those who think these changes are mostly for cosmetic purposes?

Time will tell. Of course they will jump ship if a CoP is more beneficial to running the scam, the IAS is just an extra bonus for them

We all know that the BPA are useless when it comes to their members and sanctions, that is the norm but who really cares about the BPA ... it's the CoP that matters and how we can use it.

PPC's are very fickle as you know so watch the space ?