Smart Parking ordered to shut down illegal car park and pay back "fines"

pappa_golf

beamerguy wrote: »

So who in the BPA has the whip pappa ??????

I thought they set up the ISPA to do that ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


BPA list https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00979689/officers

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

I thought they set up the ISPA to do that ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


BPA list https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00979689/officers

We know that but who could be telling the
Head of Operational Services, Steve Clark what to do

pappa_golf

beamerguy wrote: »

We know that but who could be telling the
Head of Operational Services, Steve Clark what to do

he is no more than an employee , it would do no good , I have spoken to steve several times by phone , and wherever (in his power) will try to sort things

the BPA ordering smart (yes the BPA) , as in the board , would simply antagonize them and force them to move to the I,,,,,,,,,,,,

common sence and reasonability finished when the ISPA were over ruled by the wright hastle /bpa fiasco , they (the BPA) just simply got rid of them

pappa_golf

OK , the answer https://youtu.be/6T43EDpNn-g

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

he is no more than an employee , it would do no good , I have spoken to steve several times by phone , and wherever (in his power) will try to sort things

the BPA ordering smart (yes the BPA) , as in the board , would simply antagonize them and force them to move to the I,,,,,,,,,,,,

common sence and reasonability finished when the ISPA were over ruled by the wright hastle /bpa fiasco , they (the BPA) just simply got rid of them

Head of Operational Services in name only so no power
The board should be protecting the public against
scammers like Smart not telling people (as the article
suggests) ... "sue them for a refund" ?

Smart moving from the BPA to the IPC could happen
at any time, all that will do is make the IPC an even
bigger scam.

I doubt if the BPA lost Smart, it would make little
or no difference unless of course Smart finance the
whole sorry setup

pappa_golf

beamerguy wrote: »

Head of Operational Services in name only so no power
The board should be protecting the public against
scammers like Smart not telling people (as the article
suggests) ... "sue them for a refund" ?

Smart moving from the BPA to the IPC could happen
at any time, all that will do is make the IPC an even
bigger scam.

I doubt if the BPA lost Smart, it would make little
or no difference unless of course Smart finance the
whole sorry setup

I seem to recall that PE bankrolled the setting up of either POPLa / BPA

indigo got there way regarding railway land , why did they get that?

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

I seem to recall that PE bankrolled the setting up of either POPLa / BPA

indigo got there way regarding railway land , why did they get that?

A serious question you need to ask from your friend
Steve Clark because someone or the media need to
be asking ?

pappa_golf

perhaps the BPA s biggest con was the renegotiating of the POPLa contract , at present , the operator can issue a code , POPLa open a case , await and read the "accused" statement , and the parking Co just simply not offer any evidence , and they have to write back to the accused

how much longer can they stand the cost , 50+% of all cases simply dropped with no income or money coming in

perhaps the contract should be broken or renegotiated ASAP

what other company would take this on ?

how about , the PPC is charged the initial £27 then if they simply do not enter evidence they are charged the £100 parking cost , that is then fowarded to the accused

I think the BPA (as an ATA) and POPLas days are numbered

pappa_golf

regarding indigo , the BPA guidelines : we can no longer handle bylaw cases , if you wish to appeal , then do this thru the magistrates court

the fault lies deeper , in that the DVLA are giving details to a company that are not entitled , its the TOC that should get info

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

perhaps the BPA s biggest con was the renegotiating of the POPLa contract , at present , the operator can issue a code , POPLa open a case , await and read the "accused" statement , and the parking Co just simply not offer any evidence , and they have to write back to the accused

how much longer can they stand the cost , 50+% of all cases simply dropped with no income or money coming in

perhaps the contract should be broken or renegotiated ASAP

what other company would take this on ?

how about , the PPC is charged the initial £27 then if they simply do not enter evidence they are charged the £100 parking cost , that is then fowarded to the accused

I think the BPA (as an ATA) and POPLas days are numbered

You are right ..... but if the new members bill does
not finish them off for good, who will ?