Preparation of Defence HX / Gladstones

1505grandad

FYI  -  ".................. which incidentally do not follow the BPA code of practice for providing clear info on the T&C's at the entrance to the car park."

Claimant is IPC AoS member,

blancswann

Here is my NTK front page

Redx

Definitely an IPC member , it says so at the bottom , plus they are listed on the IPC AOS list , not the BPA

blancswann

They have the BPA logo on the bottom of their appeal rejection letter to me.

Redx

Almost all are in the BPA as corporate members , this is all explained in the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum , it's been dealt with in detail numerous times , the logos show the differences , as do the 2 websites , I am sure that Umkomaas , coupon mad and several others have explained it in detail

I have no idea why you choose to argue instead of just accepting what we say and reading up on why we say it

HX are not BPA AOS members , period , but as with most parking companies , they will have the BPA rectangular corporate logo if they are corporate members

I bet the one on your rejection letter is not a roundel like the one I was referring to on the NTK you posted and that gramps mentioned as an error in your statement for the same reason

Edit , I have found the post from 3.5 years ago that Umkomaas made

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5634496/bpa-membership-on-signage

Ancient history but still valid

Coupon-mad

blancswann said:

They have the BPA logo on the bottom of their appeal rejection letter to me.

That is covered in the Q&A at the top of the NEWBIES thread, where I beg people not to tell us about the tedious BPA rectangle.

blancswann

I wasn't overly concerned about what they are a member of, only that my WS and theirs refers to the BPA code of practice about keying errors and they are saying that this is a new 2020 code, which should be discounted as it has been brought in after the breach took place. 

blancswann

Can I also ask what you think to my argument that the stock images supplied by the Claimant are not what were in the car park. I unfortunately do not have any photo's inside the car park to disprove this. But I am certain those signs were not the ones in the car park. Am I allowed to dispute them? Surely they have to submit actual signs in situ as their evidence?

Coupon-mad

That's a good point...they talk about the BPA CoP even though they aren't BPA AOS members.  Quite bizarre.

The reason you raised it is because it shows the direction of travel of the parking industry, as does the new Code of Practice which has an Appeals Charter meaning that the will of Parliamentary Ministers is that 'keying errors' are not to be penalised.  It is only a draft code but will be statutory, so clearly 'keying errors' are not intended to be pursued by a professional parking firm...

That's what I would say to the Judge about that.

Redx

As above , if they opened a door , walk through it and use it against them , it is good ammunition for you and proves their statements are flawed and incorrect so not to be believed or to agree with you about trivial matters like minor keying errors are de minimis

Put them to strict proof on signage , that goes without saying

Ensure that you know the difference about memberships , even if they don't