They say it’s fair

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

twhitehousescat

The_Deep wrote: »

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

did'nt know that , thanks for info :rotfl:

Loadsofchildren123

Do one precedent letter for her to send (which others can then use, or she can just send every time she gets a letter) saying that the salon is contractually entitled to use 4 spaces and has permits for those spaces. These have to be collected from the salon to be placed in the car at the start of the parking, and this takes a few minutes. This is precisely why the BPA Code of Practice expressly requires grace periods (section 13). I'm looking at Version 5 of the code and can't see reference to the 10 minutes, perhaps someone else can help with where this came from (it may be advice to operators not contained in the code itself). Therefore, there is no payment due and no valid claim because the requirement to display a permit was complied with.


I'd also ask who took the photographs. Ask also for the instructions given to the person(s) who take(s) the photographs, and whether they have been made aware of the BPA Code in general, and specifically requirement for grace periods? Also ask if commission is paid to the person(s) who take(s) the photographs. Section 15 of the Code of Practice requires an operator to ensure that self-ticketers know and keep to the code.


Complain in the letter that the person taking the photographs on their behalf is clearly using predatory tactics in not allowing for grace periods and not waiting to see if the person parking is going to collect a permit, and not identifying themselves in any way. This is a clear breach of the requirement for "professionalism" set out in section 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. Point out that compliance with the code is a mandatory condition of membership.


Say that you will be complaining to the BPA about both these issues.
You could also complain to the BPA by email [EMAIL="aos@britishparking.co.uk"]aos@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]
I found them to be good at replying. Google the BPA code to find it, if any difficulty someone will post you a link. It's not a long document and not hard to get through.

Loadsofchildren123

I say one precedent letter because this is bound to happen again and then the same letter can be used by other permit users when it does.
also, if they continue to chase, keep sending the same letter, or a covering letter attaching the old one and saying how you are growing weary of repeating the same matters which they are choosing to ignore.
then you add in a sentence "your correspondence has become harassing in nature because of its frequency and tone. I have told you x times that you [or your client] have [has] no claim. Please stop writing to me, or I will issue a claim against you for damages for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act, and an injunction prohibiting further contact.

System

and an injunction prohibiting further contact.

add "at your cost". The cost of obtaining an injunction is paid by the losing party.

It is highly likely that this is one of your neighbours on commission.

And it is more than likely they have not signed up to the BPA Code of Practice - a breach of the DVLA rules on this, though the DVLA don't bother enforcing their own rules against paying customers.

Johno100

twhitehousescat wrote: »

there website is set up to entice new customers

others will comment , but the BPA banned commission on new services

are you ADAMANT that no representative of flashparks is on the land , in van with livery , and in uniform at the time tickets issued?

I believe this is the relevant clause of the BPA Code of Conduct.

9.4 Effective from 2 January 2018, the practice of offering financial incentives relating to the quantity of parking charge notices in new and existing employee contracts is prohibited.

But of course the self-ticketer is not going to be an employee of the parking company so perhaps this prohibition does not apply.

Loadsofchildren123

Johno100 wrote: »

But of course the self-ticketer is not going to be an employee of the parking company so perhaps this prohibition does not apply.

I'd say that paragraph of the code extends to people used to self-ticket - the code is not written with any focus on companies who use self-ticketers. If companies can't pay inducements to employees it must follow that they cannot pay inducements to self-ticketers either.


In a normal world one would ask the BPA to confirm that they consider this part of the code to extend to self-ticketing scenarios, but the BPA is as much use as a chocolate teapot and is unlikely to confirm that this interpretation is correct.

Redx

here is the january 2018 BOPA CoP grace period clause #13

13 Grace periods
13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the parking contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.
13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.
13.2.a Vehicles are not permitted to park under the grace period in spaces designated to specific users for example Blue Badge holders. At all times vehicles must have appropriate and valid permit e.g Blue Badge on display for enforcement officer to inspect.
13.3 You must tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

as for predatory tactics, this covers it as mentioned above

9.4 Effective from 2 January 2018, the practice of offering financial incentives relating to the quantity of parking charge notices in new and existing employee contractsis prohibited.
9.5 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of non-compliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Panel

they cannot agree 5 minutes when the BPA CoP 2018 clearly states 10 minutes minimum


as for the girls father, he was very foolish telling his daughter to ignore it


he should come on here and be educated into the actual facts of the matter

Loadsofchildren123

Thanks Redx, I was looking at the previous version of the code, so that explains my confusion.


I'd use something like this as a letter for your employee to send, and any others that have the same problem in the future.


Dear Sirs


With reference to your recent NtK, please note that I am an employee at X salon, which is contractually entitled to use 4 spaces in the car park and has permits for those spaces.


Upon arrival at work, I (and every other person using a permit) has to collect a permit from the salon to be placed in the car at the start of the parking. This takes a few minutes. This is precisely why the BPA Code of Practice expressly requires grace periods of at least 10 minutes (section 13). The delay in the permit being displayed was just five minutes, well within that grace period. Therefore, there is no payment due and no valid claim because the requirement to display a permit was complied with.

I would like to know who took the photographs of my car on the day in question. Since flashpark employees have never been seen by any of the salon staff on site, it is presumed that it is another occupant on site who is taking the photographs (this is known as "self ticketing").


I would also like to see the instructions given to the person(s) who take(s) the photographs, and whether you have made them aware of the BPA Code in general, and specifically the requirement for grace periods. As an ATA member of the BPA you will know that you are required to ensure that anyone acting on your behalf, including self ticketers, comply with the Code of Practice.


I would also like to know if you pay commission to the person(s) who take(s) the photographs. Section 15 of the Code of Practice requires an operator to ensure that self-ticketers know and keep to the code.

I also believe that the person taking the photographs, who is of course acting on your behalf, is using predatory tactics by apparently lying in wait and not allowing for grace periods (ie they are not waiting to see if the person parking is going to collect a permit, and not identifying themselves in any way). This is a clear breach of section 9 of the Code of Practice.


You will of course be aware that compliance with the Code of Practice is a mandatory condition of membership and that you could not effectively operate without such membership because then you would be unable to access keeper details from the DVLA.


I will be complaining to the BPA about your clear breaches of the Code.


Please confirm that you will cancel my PCN and that you will educate your agent about the requirements of the Code, specifically those relating to grace periods and predatory tactics.




Then I'd do a complaint to the BPA by email [EMAIL="aos@britishparking.co.uk"]aos@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]
I'd write this from you as the salon owner. Set out the circumstances - ie you have been a tenant in the salon for 13 years, you have throughout paid the landlord for parking and have had 4 permits. A new landlord has brought in flashpark, one of their members. Flashpark appear to be using someone on site to "self ticket" given that no flashpark employees have been seen on site.


When parking, the driver has to park then collect the permit from the salon to display it, which takes a few minutes.


Then the complaint:
Flashpark has issued a NtK to one of your employees and the ticket was given in respect of a 5 minute period of parking while the employee was fetching the permit. all the employee did was arrive, park, walk to the salon and straight back to the car with the permit.


Flashpark are in breach of the BPA code of practice in the following respects:
Para 13.2 (the requirement to allow a 10 minute grace period)
Para 9.5 (use of predatory tactics with a self-ticketer not identifying themselves and apparently lying in wait to catch a driver out within a grace period)
Para 9.4 since you believe that the self-ticketer must have been given financial incentives.
Also complain that under the Code members are required to instruct self-ticketers in relation to the Code and self-ticketers must comply with it as they are acting on behalf of the member. It is clear that in this instance such instructions have not been given.


Ask them to investigate and to tell you what action they are going to take against flashpark in respect of its clear breaches.

Coupon-mad

Add this level of detail to the BPA Complaint email, with the links to Flashpark's own website that DOES mention an incentive being paid. You can copy these words:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74373387#Comment_74373387

Do not write a wishy washy short complaint to the BPA, go to town on it!