New BPA Code of Practice - 6.1.2020

twhitehousescat

I do like the idea of name n shame "norris cole" , in my area it would be easier for a named pediphile to live than a 2 faced money grabbing %^&*(%

MistyZ

Tank40 wrote: »

I thought about doing something similar (replacing number plate with one which was rude about the operator) but was concerned as to the point at which I would be either on a highway with a fake plate or on private property in scamera range.

I'm wondering about this too. There's 2 supermarkets I go to ... often it's nose to tail out of both car parks and that continues onto the public highway with nowhere to stop en route. And no idea what ANPR range is, though it must be short.

Need to reconnoitre, basically.

Half_way

New code of (mal) practice, blah balh blah de blah
Theres something amiss when a private members trade association whose sole purpose is to benefit its members (that dresses itself up as some sort of authority and then pretends not to be) can write and approve its own rules as it pleases ( to please it members) and then push its self aproved stuff as a shining example.
And on top of that use those rules its made up for the benefit of its members to instruct a so called independent appeals system on weather or not to allow so called appeals.
the whole thing is a sham

beamerguy wrote: »

24 Recovering unpaid parking charges
24.1a Appendix E of the Code sets out a parking charge
notice flow chart for recovering unpaid parking charges
and for appeals.
24.1b Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before
Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum
(which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added
for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70
unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted.

But we are still under POFA2012 which very clearly says that such an amount cannot be added. ????

Do we assume that the new government code of practice says the same and if so, what happened to the consultation ??

So, the BPA are telling their members to actually break the law ?
Ignoring the ruling of the Supreme court as well ??

Another BPA mish mash and as Castle points out above regarding deciding to park ..... clearly they think it will be acceptable to stop, get out of the car to read the signs BUT ....... if you park to read the signs, you could get a ticket ????

Who writes this mish mash and who signs it off to be remotely logical

The BPA = A HUGE DINOSAUR

As for the BPA being a dinosaur/not fit etc etc, if you take it at its base, its a trade association set up for its own members.
by having a so called code of practice they give themselves false air of legitimacy - which in turn is used by the DVLA as an excuse to keep the £2.50's flooding in, and the data taps flowing freely un impeeded.

So is the BPa fit for purpose? the answer is yes, its doing a fantastic job and serving its members exceptionally well


Lipsitck on a pig does a huge dis service to our porcine friends, more like lipsitck on a lump of !!!!.- and they have even managed to polish that

MistyZ

You're spot on Halfway.

Trouble is, the BPA's CoP can be useful and has just got less useful. POPLA is going to be tougher.

Half_way

Popla can be useful in getting parking charges cancelled, however should any of it go to court, then the changes in the CoP, plus the fact that its written by the industry and contains a clause encouraging abuse of process could be used to show it up for what it is

Fruitcake

Tank40 wrote: »

I thought about doing something similar (replacing number plate with one which was rude about the operator) but was concerned as to the point at which I would be either on a highway with a fake plate or on private property in scamera range.

I believe a gentleman who was significantly involved with a Supreme court case against a parking scammer offers for sale a device that moves a number plate into place to cover the public road going version with a flick of a switch so that it reads FU ANPR whilst on private land.

I believe a fictitious character called Mr Bond had a similar device fitted to a classic Aston Martin car in the sixties.

Coupon-mad

People I know just remove the obstruction by hopping out once a corner has been turned, and making the 'nose to tail' queue of cars (if there is one) wait 10 seconds.

A grin at the driver behind, as the duct tape is whipped off, and off they all go.

You know when someone in moving traffic stops momentarily to re-shut their door that they've realised is not properly closed? It's as quick as that, and sets a good example to the person behind as well, who might copy the tactic or at least talk to friends & family about it later and they will have food for thought.

The public have no choice now. This is industry is WORSE than clamping was and we need to protect ourselves, our data and our pockets.

waamo

beamerguy wrote: »

24 Recovering unpaid parking charges
24.1a Appendix E of the Code sets out a parking charge
notice flow chart for recovering unpaid parking charges
and for appeals.
24.1b Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before
Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum
(which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added
for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70
unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted.

But we are still under POFA2012 which very clearly says that such an amount cannot be added. ????

Do we assume that the new government code of practice says the same and if so, what happened to the consultation ??

So, the BPA are telling their members to actually break the law ?
Ignoring the ruling of the Supreme court as well ??

Another BPA mish mash and as Castle points out above regarding deciding to park ..... clearly they think it will be acceptable to stop, get out of the car to read the signs BUT ....... if you park to read the signs, you could get a ticket ????

Who writes this mish mash and who signs it off to be remotely logical

The BPA = A HUGE DINOSAUR

This is an interesting one. My gut feeling says that because it's now in the CoP they will nearly all do it. The court claims will all incorporate it. This makes them vulnerable to complaints to the SRA.

Like with clamping I think their greed can be used against them and may prove to be an Achilles heel.

NeilCr

twhitehousescat wrote: »

I do like the idea of name n shame "norris cole" , in my area it would be easier for a named pediphile to live than a 2 faced money grabbing %^&*(%

God

"Norris Cole" - another "insult" like "snowflake" or "gammon". Really hate it when people use these throwaway remarks

Would like to respond but can you just clarify exactly what you mean by someone being a Norris Cole who, incidentally, IIRC, didn't take any money. Might be wrong on this as I am not a Corrie aficianado!

ETA

Just found this

He doesn't sound too bad at all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norris_Cole_(Coronation_Street)

Perhaps, you are actually complimenting people and I got it wrong!

Snakes_Belly

I was having a conversation with a colleague from a previous employer the other day. We both have worked in the financial sector which is very regulated.

I was telling him about my court case and that I found it very confusing that their codes of practice are mere 'nice to do' or good practice. It's not a case of if you flaunt the rules there could be a very big fine. There seems to be no kind of compliance checks with regard to the operations of the PPC's.

He said that it is a similar situation in charities as they are unregulated and have a code of practice. He also had difficulty in getting his head around that.

To me it seems as if these codes of practice are not worth the paper they are written on.