Observices (OPC) Private Parking Charge Notice

Darren104

Coupon-mad said:

Darren104 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Tell OPC that you wish the courts to decide, because the charge remains in dispute and you do not accept the Trade Body's own self-serving appeals service decision that is made by non-legally trained persons for a service that is paid for by parking firms, works in their interests, is perceived by consumers and the Government not to be independent and will be replaced in 2022 by  statutory regulation.  The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 promises in 2022, to bring in a new and independent Appeals Service, due to widespread concerns about poor practice and non-independent competing appeals services and Trade Bodies which has created a dysfunctional industry which causes harm to consumers.

Tell them that you expressly disallow them to pass your data to a debt collector, and remind them that in a disputed case, the FCA rules which the BPA expects members to pay regard to, state that a disputed case cannot proceed to 'debt recovery' or third parties.  A disputed debt is not a collectable debt. Under the FCA guidelines, CONC 7.14.1 says: "A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent take in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds." https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC/7/?view=chapter

The only exception would be to pass the case to a solicitor where the dispute can be decided in court and that is the route that you require OPC to follow, mindful of the overriding objective in CPR 1.  The Overriding Objective seeks to ensure that parties to litigation are dealt with fairly, cases proceed swiftly in the most cost-efficient way possible and that the system can be easily understood by those that use it.  

State that you refuse to deal with debt collectors and refuse to accept any costs enhancement, and the most swift and cost-efficient way to resolve the dispute is in court.

Shall I copy and paste this request in an email to OPC. Thanks 

It's not a request.

I know what you mean, but should i put this in an email, in my own words. Thanks 

Coupon-mad

Yes but adapting my words. I wrote it so that you could almost copy it. Important to state that the debt is disputed and the rest of the things I said as that *should* protect you from false added 'costs'.

patient_dream

Darren104 said:

POPLA also said that because the sign stating a Fine will be issued if 2 hours is exceeded did not contain an Operator or BPA Logo, she was satisfied it was not a sign that had been placed there by OPC. This is a the signage at the other end of the site, taken recently by myself. 
  

It is clear that the BPA do not audit this site and Dodgy Doug is taking the p*ss out of the BPA and POPLA.

"A FINE WILL APPLY" ...... Dodgy Doug IS MAKING IT UP AS HE GOES ALONG

AND ...... on the yellow sign ..... "additional charges up to £300" ?   
The current BPA code of practice says they can add £60 - £70 for debt collectors costs .. WHICH IS RUBBISH ANYWAY .... they also say anything higher must be approved by the BPA.

I would suggest that the BPA have never been to this car park 

Umkomaas

I think it's that car park where DD got into trouble previously and is linked to his conviction. 

Darren104

Umkomaas said:

I think it's that car park where DD got into trouble previously and is linked to his conviction. 

Yes you are correct

Parking fines firm admits misleading motorists

The company that controls parking at a Black Country shopping centre has admitted misleading motorists, after drivers complained they were wrongly fined.

The company that controls parking at a Black Country shopping centre has admitted misleading motorists, after drivers complained they were wrongly fined.Trading Standards officers launched an investigation into Observices Parking Consultancy, which controls parking at St John's Retail Park, Wolverhampton, after shoppers complained over fines issued for parking there. Shoppers can leave a vehicle for two hours without charge but are fined £100 if they stay longer and warned the bill could rise to £400 if the ticket is challenged. The car park is monitored by cameras that take a timed photo of vehicles arriving and leaving but there was confusion involving cars visiting twice in one day.Several drivers alleged that, after making two visits to the site, they received a fine despite never staying more than two hours. There is also concern that details of fines were not issued for months. The parking company and Douglas Harris, a director, appeared at Wolverhampton Magistrates Court yesterday.Harris from Radley, Hertfordshire admitted 13 offences and OPC, based at Elstree, pleaded guilty to 23. Harris admitted taking more that the required 28 days to request details of the owners of vehicles from the DVLA. He also pleaded guilty to displaying 15 misleading signs at the site and sending letters from a debt recovery firm called Windsor-Smythe and Partners without revealing it was the same company as OPC. The admissions were all made on the basis of neglect rather than connivance. OPC admitted similar offences and further charges in which details of the "additional vehicle activity" of drivers were ignored. Harris maintained as he left court: "I have done nothing wrong. If we had fought this case it could have put the company into administration." Sentencing will be on March 30. The retail park is now considering other firms to take over OPC's role. OPC earlier pleaded guilty to 23 charges, including similar offenses and further counts in which details of the "additional vehicle activity" of drivers were ignored. The admissions were made on the basis of neglect rather than connivance. Harris was fined £3,100 and ordered to pay £2,585 costs. His firm OPC was hit with a £26,750 fine and £5,000 costs.

95Rollers

Have you sent a SAR to Dodgy Douglas yet?  I would do this and ask about when and how these signs were passed of by the BPA.  I would also draw attention to the  Wolverhampton Magistrates Court judgment against saying he clearly knows what the standard of signs is based on these convictions - but appears not to on this occasion.  I'd also drop in a comparison of the PE Beavis case signs vs these. Also I'd include a copy of BPA CoP guidance on entry signs (Appendix B I think).

Darren104

95Rollers said:

Have you sent a SAR to Dodgy Douglas yet?  I would do this and ask about when and how these signs were passed of by the BPA.  I would also draw attention to the  Wolverhampton Magistrates Court judgment against saying he clearly knows what the standard of signs is based on these convictions - but appears not to on this occasion.  I'd also drop in a comparison of the PE Beavis case signs vs these. Also I'd include a copy of BPA CoP guidance on entry signs (Appendix B I think).

According to POPLA The sign that says a fine will be apply if exceeded is nothing to do with OPC as their logo or BPA Logos are not displayed on it, so they cannot be held responsible for this sign.

patient_dream

There is a possibility that Dodgy Douglas could appear in a Crown court for fraud.

Just another BPA member. How many must be exposed before government wake up to the fact that the BPA is not fit for purpose 

95Rollers

Darren104 said:

 

According to POPLA The sign that says a fine will be apply if exceeded is nothing to do with OPC as their logo or BPA Logos are not displayed on it, so they cannot be held responsible for this sign.

But I'd challenge it on the grounds that the entrance you passed through only had that sign viewable on it which was obscured by a gate etc. If you'd come in via the other entrance then it would have a bit more clout. The fact is that sign is up in a carpark he is managing thus causing confusion! What active steps have Doug or BPA done to eradicate this conflicting term clearer to users of this site?

His ANPRs would prove you never passed it. Don't focus too much on POPLA. It's funded by BPA members so it's always going to predominantly lean in their favour and proven not independent. The one good thing is a popla appeal costs the PPC a £25 admin fee I think so he's already £30 down so far.

Coupon-mad

Darren104 said:

95Rollers said:

Have you sent a SAR to Dodgy Douglas yet?  I would do this and ask about when and how these signs were passed of by the BPA.  I would also draw attention to the  Wolverhampton Magistrates Court judgment against saying he clearly knows what the standard of signs is based on these convictions - but appears not to on this occasion.  I'd also drop in a comparison of the PE Beavis case signs vs these. Also I'd include a copy of BPA CoP guidance on entry signs (Appendix B I think).

According to POPLA The sign that says a fine will be apply if exceeded is nothing to do with OPC as their logo or BPA Logos are not displayed on it, so they cannot be held responsible for this sign.

We know...in a POPLA assessor's opinion. Big deal.  They are not a Judge and are not legally trained.