Parking (Code of Practice) Bill - Passed by MPs

steve1500

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Anyone who has ever been ripped off by a company should add to the bad reviews on TrustPilot.

For example, here's ParkingEye:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.parkingeye.co.uk

Trading Standards should also be contacted by victims of companies who take money for no service.

How did they get 3% excellent or is that just a completely stupid question.


I bet the DVLA can't wait for GDPR to come into force on 26th May - Not

logician

bargepole wrote: »

An interesting feature of all this, was the fact that despite all their lobbying, the BPA et al could not find a single one of the 650 MPs to oppose the second reading of the Bill.

kryten3000 wrote: »

The BPA support the bill because they think they'll get to write the new CoP.

bargepole wrote: »

I believe Caroline Sheppard has other ideas.

Is this the same Caroline Sheppard who sits on PTAS tribunals for council issued penalties?

By all accounts a fair lady.

However, the BPA supported the bill .

No doubt interested stakeholders will be contacted in the drafting of any code of practice.

The COP is not be problem - it will be the strict enforcement of such a Code.

I do hope that provision will also be put in place that PPCs will need to obtain Advertising and any planning permissions before commencing any ticket issuing

Coupon-mad

the BPA supported the bill.

No doubt interested stakeholders will be contacted in the drafting of any code of practice.

Which 'interested stakeholders' do you have in mind?

My preferred interested stakeholders are the BMPA, and I would hope that Caroline Sheppard (and Henry Greenslade if he gets his oar in) will be preferred as experts, not the BPA and their ''cowboy''* private firm members with their shoddy money-grabbing, consumer-suing agenda.

- What do you think of BPA members who sue ordinary members of the public, logician?

- What do you think about companies who extort money from people but provide no service?

I detest and despise them, and the sooner such sharks are out of business, the better.




*Parliamentary debate word from MPs.

Coupon-mad

steve1500 wrote: »

How did they get 3% excellent or is that just a completely stupid question.

We know that some disreputable firms try to disguise appalling TrustPilot reviews, with fake ones.

catfunt

kryten3000 wrote: »

The BPA support the bill because they think they'll get to write the new CoP.

And also partly because their stance is that a single C-o-P would help stop them losing members to the IPC, as PPCs shamelessly forum-shopped.

pappa_golf

please can we remember , and comments about the "RAC" are actually for the rac foundation , a charitable trust , with not a lot of say https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/ministers-back-parking-firm-clamp-down

Johno100

catfunt wrote: »

And also partly because their stance is that a single C-o-P would help stop them losing members to the IPC, as PPCs shamelessly forum-shopped.

That was my first cynical thought. I'm sure the BPA would like to see the IPC legislated out of existence or at the very least, in their eyes, a more even playing field be put in place.

Coupon-mad

The BPA:

''As the leading authority in the sector we shall continue to work closely with Government and key stakeholders to press for progress towards a positive outcome for all''.

I can't even type the words I want to say to that misleading tripe.

BPA hang your heads in shame. You are NOT the 'leading authority' on anything, except how to blatantly lie to Government about the number of court claims, in order to push through the POFA in 2012.

pappa_golf

the BPA are a joke , not fit for ,,,,,,,,,

information given to the general public is in may case FALSE and FAKE

they are supposed to be the "authority" on private parking ???


ok recent one from them

spot the flaws in there statement , you can stop at number ten




Thank you for your email.

I can see that in this instance, the charge was issued for a breach of the advertised terms and conditions by on privately owned Railway land. Charges issued on Railway land are referred to as Penalty Charge Notices because they will have been issued under railway Byelaws as well. Whilst I am sorry to learn if you were unhappy with the outcome of the appeal, it is not something I can address. The BPA has no authority to intervene in the appeals process.

As the charge has been issued on railway land, then please be be advised that the BPA has temporarily removed the requirement for our members to provide a POPLA verification Code when an appeal is rejected. This is due to complaints being made that POPLA are not able to oversee appeals made where railway Byelaws are concerned. Until a solution is found, if a motorist remains unhappy following an appeal!!!8217;s rejection, they can appeal further via a Magistrates Court; our Code from which you have quoted does not reflect this at the moment as the decision is temporary. Unfortunately, as we cannot advise you how long the requirement will remain lifted, you will now need to use the Magistrate!!!8217;s Court to appeal further.

The British Parking Association (BPA) has campaigned at length for clarity on the clauses in Railway Byelaws pertaining to parking to be improved, and the Government committed at a meeting in January to provide clarification but due to various circumstances, some beyond their control, this has not been forthcoming. In the meantime we will continue to work with Government to achieve a resolution to Railway Byelaws Clauses.

Please also be aware that when a charge remains unpaid, then in due course it will be escalated to debt recovery. This is standard procedure. The cost of the charge can increase as the debt collection agency add on their costs. With that in mind, I would suggest that you now either pay the charges, or seek legal advice to contest it via Magistrates court.

I hope this information is of use.

Umkomaas

As the charge has been issued on railway land, then please be be advised that the BPA has temporarily removed the requirement for our members to provide a POPLA verification Code when an appeal is rejected. This is due to complaints being made that POPLA are not able to oversee appeals made where railway Byelaws are concerned. Until a solution is found, if a motorist remains unhappy following an appeal!!!8217;s rejection, they can appeal further via a Magistrates Court; our Code from which you have quoted does not reflect this at the moment as the decision is temporary. Unfortunately, as we cannot advise you how long the requirement will remain lifted, you will now need to use the Magistrates Court to appeal further.

Time to write to the DVLA and ask how one goes about this! Utter bull excrement.

You do not appeal at the Mags Court, you are prosecuted there under criminal law!