OPS - Forbidding posting on MSE Parking forum

beamerguy

On the 5th February 2014 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) issued, in a press release, that they would not be renewing the Consumer Credit Licence of Roxburghe UK Ltd. In addition, they have expelled Alasdair Turnbull, who represents and part-owns HFO Services, from the Law Society's group licence. This is something which is totally without precedent and marks the extent to which Turnbull and Roxburghe UK Ltd have been found in breach of consumer laws.

and the BPA allow him to be a director?

I'm sure it goes deeper and that is why the BPA are just a dinosaur and simply not for for purpose

I think the scam IPC/IAS modeled themselves on the BPA

ParkingMad

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=Gary+Osner

4 separate entries for Gary Osner.

twhitehousescat

and according to this , he resigned from bpa back in 2014 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/bqkIfmaYcgajBIC9wOqe2WVVPlk/appointments

ParkingMad

and according to this , he resigned from bpa back in 2014 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/bqkIfmaYcgajBIC9wOqe2WVVPlk/appointments

He was reappointed in 2018.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/cGLro-IcTtAn2dORaPJQccrBWDc/appointments

Snakes_Belly

I really hope that in forming the new CoP that they drain the swamp.

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

I really hope that in forming the new CoP that they drain the swamp.

The BPA could have been very good but they failed at every post.
The BPA are wholly responsible for the distress caused to motorists ?
WHY, because the failed to control their members/scammers
All they do is give lip service to the motorist and claim they are driving standards up ? The only driving they do is supporting their paying members ...... Government at the time, when the BPA dreamed up POFA 2012 were oblivious to the huge scam that was about to follow

However, apart from the new CoP and appeals service which will totally degrade the BPA, there is the opportunity to issue complaints about the BPA. As one minister said, it's not just PPC's, it will be ATA's that could lose their licence.

When the BPA fell out with London Councils because they owed them money, this was the appeals service, the BPA set up what we called WHOPLA ........ It stood for WRIGHT HASSALL POPLA.
Wright Hassall solicitors clearly saw this as a money making venture and operated it in the same way as Gladstones/IPC/IAS

Whoever dreamed this one up at the BPA was a bit loopy loo
Mind you the CEO at the time was upskirt Troy

One complete failing of the BPA is to allow companies such as Britannia and NCP to permit the so called legal, BWLegal to attempt a scam on motorists by adding fake sums of money
to be added to claims. It is after all the PPC who instructs a legal

Allowing such scam money could well bring the BPA down

Woppyman72

So I feel I need to share...

The OPS response to the POPLA appeal;

Any information provided in the defence of this parking charge is provided only for the Appellant and Assessor to view. We expressly forbid the sharing of any information provided in defending this appeal. The information is strictly confidential and commercially sensitive. No file, in part or whole submitted by One Parking Solution Ltd may be copied or shared with any other individuals in paper or electronic form, this includes the Money Saving Expert internet forums. Any such sharing of files or information provided by One Parking Solution Ltd will be reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office. A redacted contract is supplied to protect personal information. The appellant entered into a contractual agreement upon parking on site. The terms are laid out on the signage on site including at the entrance and state that parking is permitted for vehicles displaying a valid permit and/or pre-authorised vehicles parked wholly within their allocated parking space. By parking or remaining on site otherwise than in accordance with the above the driver agrees to pay a parking charge. The driver made use of the facilities regardless of whether or not he left the vehicle. At the time of the contravention the appellant failed to park within a marked bay and did not have pre-authorisation make use of the facilities as they were not on the exemption list and therefore agreed to pay a parking charge. The Appellant states he did not enter onto the land operated by One Parking Solution Ltd. This is not true. The boundary of the site is where the words ‘Pay & Display’ and the white line are painted across the roadway as can be seen in the Entrance photo. Contravention photos 6, 12 & 15 show the vehicle is parked on the land managed by One Parking Solution Ltd. The rear wheels of the vehicle are clearly within the boundary of the site as they are parked on the drains, where the vehicle waits for at least 5 minutes for the passenger to return from Starbucks. When the vehicle eventually leave the site, contravention photo 1, it is even more evident that he had been parked on the property because all of the roadway sign writing becomes visible. The boundary of the site is the Pay & Display writing and white line at the entrance as can be seen in the site photos, the entrance photo and the Appellant’s own photos. The Appellant’s photo, figure 3. shows the wheels of the vehicle on the drains that are in the roadway. A closer photo of the drains near the entrance is included. The drains are well within the boundary line of the site. The Appellant has provided his own photo of the entrance, figure 12, which also shows the drains are well within the boundary of the site. The Appellant has provided images of his GPS, as the GPS does not confirm the site boundary it is not relevant to the appeal. The Appellant has provided a photo of an out of date map that he has obtained from an internet forum. The map is relevant to historical cases, it is not relevant to this case. The signs on site were updated in January 2019. Time and Date stamped photos and an up to date map are included. The boundary of the site has not changed, it has always been where the concrete changes to tarmac as seen in the photos of the entrance. The green box the Appellant has coloured onto the map is irrelevant because the photos show the Appellant parked on the drains which have been demonstrated to be clearly within the boundary of the site. The Appellant states there are no signs visible as the driver enters the site, the site photos and site map show the signs on site. The Appellant states there was no grace period. A grace period is provided to allow a motorist to review the terms and conditions. The driver made no attempt to review the terms and conditions of the site. As the driver made use of the facilities to wait for a passenger the grace period does not apply. The Appellant states the terms and conditions could not be read from outside of the site as they face the inside of the site. All visitors to the site are provided with a grace period to review the terms and conditions. Should they decide they do not want to make use of the facilities they may leave the site without charge. The Appellant states the cameras relate to Broadwater Street East, however he has not provided any evidence to support this. He is assuming that the E on the camera images relate to the word East. The motorist has already argued that he was on the edge of the Site on Broadwater Street West, he cannot therefore argue that the camera relates to Broadwater Street East. The camera is on the site called Broadwater Street West. The fact the camera images state Broadwater St (E) is for internal purposes only, it is not an incorrect site name. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they are parked in accordance with the terms. If they are unable to do so they should either, make alternative parking arrangements or otherwise agree to pay a parking charge. If the driver is unsure, our number is on the boards and the signs are BPA approved. As the driver has not been named, One Parking Solution Ltd are seeking keeper liability.

My response;

As the Operator has not provided any significant evidence to address the original appeal I urge the Assessor to find in favour of the Appellant.
1. The Operator claims the vehicle in question was partially on their Clients land. The fact of the matter is that none of the photographs or the site map supplied by the Operator evidence this to the standard required.
2. The Operator relies upon an entrance sign which is already evidenced as being inadequately positioned for a driver entering the site and not displaying contractual charges. The Operator has not contested my clear evidence of how the site is observed from the entrance.
3. The Operator makes assumption the driver is not reading a sign and argues against providing a grace period. This is in clear breach of BPA CoP 13.2. which provides no latitude with respect to whether an Operator believes a driver to be reading signage or if anyone embarks or disembarks the vehicle.
4. The Operator has provided additional pictures of illegible, poorly positioned and hard to understand signage. No evidence has been provided of signage that clearly states the charge in suitably large font which is easy to read.
5. My position on no keeper liability/POFA compliance is not addressed.
6. The Operator’s contract with the Client does not give permission to use CCTV or ANPR to issue PCNs. The Operator is also in breach of this contract as it states they will strictly adhere to an ATA CoP which they do not (contract sections 1/a and 10/c/iii).
7. No evidence has been supplied that the signage and CCTV have appropriate council planning permission.
8. If the Operator is correct that the (E) embedded on the CCTV does not indicate ‘East’ then the CCTV evidence is inaccurate as there is no such road as Broadwater Street. As the CCTV images contain inaccurate information it cannot be relied upon.
As there is no Personal Information contained in the response save my own, I reserve the right to share this information with my legal support team.

Coupon-mad

Any such sharing of files or information provided by One Parking Solution Ltd will be reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

So funneeee! An individual is not a data controller and can't be reported.

I once crossed paths, unfortunately, with an aggressive idiot loser who tried the same old trash as this, alleging among other things thrown at me, breach of the DPA and breach of the Computer Misuse Act.

How some of us more upstanding individuals laughed at him behind his back. Some people are sad and not worthy of bothering about when they flap around with idle threats. PPCs are one such group.

beamerguy

O P S waffle, huge joke.

B P A = O P S = waffle = thanks for your subscription

B P A = we support your rubbish all the way

ParkingMad

OPS have quite a few Google reviews, but they all appear to be one star.