WIN - Another Loss for Gladstones

jaycee31

Coupon-mad said:

£30 commission per paid PCN, issued from self ticketing...despite the fact the BPA banned that, 3 or 4 years ago.  I realise that this contract was dated 2017 but they have provided it as current in 2022.

As an extra line of attack against this scam PCN, report them to the BPA and show them that agreement, pointing out the £30 bounty for self-ticketing, which is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice. 

Send the complaint to the Head of AOS, Sara Roberts, show her the URL link to this thread and mention that this contract has been provided to you as the current one: 

sara.r@britishparking.co.uk

BTW, if they are prepared to pay £30 bounty for a PCN paid at the discount (£60) then this sort of set up shows the industry can certainly cope with a £50 PCN discounted to £25, with no bounty incentives allowed.

Done.  Awaiting response (if any!) with interest.  I also copied in CWPS Limited (the land owner).

jaycee31

@Coupon-mad.  Response from BPA:

Thank you for your email and your enquiry.

I can confirm that  Minster Baywatch Limited  is a member of our Approved Operator Scheme which means that they are required to adhere to our Code of Practice.

Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme where evidence can be supplied.

 The licence agreement you have provided makes mention of a payment to the self-ticketer for each paidparking charge notice.  This is a revenue share agreement based on paid parking charges and does not conflict with our code of practice.  It is the practice of offering a financial incentive based on the quantityof parking charge notices which is prohibited under our code of practice.

For completeness the relevant code clause is copied below:

15.8 The practice of offering financial incentives relating to the quantity of parking charge notices directly to the person who issues a parking charge notice or gathers evidence for one, in a self ticketing or similar arrangement is prohibited.

Based on the information you have supplied, I have not identified a breach of point raised in the Code of Practice. etc..

Coupon-mad

jaycee31 said:

@Coupon-mad.  Response from BPA:

Thank you for your email and your enquiry.

I can confirm that  Minster Baywatch Limited  is a member of our Approved Operator Scheme which means that they are required to adhere to our Code of Practice.

Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme where evidence can be supplied.

 The licence agreement you have provided makes mention of a payment to the self-ticketer for each paidparking charge notice.  This is a revenue share agreement based on paid parking charges and does not conflict with our code of practice.  It is the practice of offering a financial incentive based on the quantityof parking charge notices which is prohibited under our code of practice.

For completeness the relevant code clause is copied below:

15.8 The practice of offering financial incentives relating to the quantity of parking charge notices directly to the person who issues a parking charge notice or gathers evidence for one, in a self ticketing or similar arrangement is prohibited.

Based on the information you have supplied, I have not identified a breach of point raised in the Code of Practice. etc..

Obviously only paid tickets should ever have seen the self-ticketer paid a '£30 reward' in any such model, otherwise the PPC could have been rinsed by spurious multiple ticketing by their client, even ticketing their own cars every day for the money then cancelling those PCNs!  The landowner has the right to cancel any PCNs within the first 14 days so obviously the bounty would not apply to those.

All self-ticketing bounty arrangements only ever relate to PAID PCNs! Do they think we are stupid?

I wasn't expecting this 'nothing to see here' reply from the BPA.  Very interesting. 

I can use this.  Thankyou for exposing it.

Le_Kirk

That's a very slim distinction between "each paid ticket" and "quantity of paid tickets"!

Trainerman

Le_Kirk said:

That's a very slim distinction between "each paid ticket" and "quantity of paid tickets"!

Especially when you consider how many people are frightened into paying right away, without considering whether they actually did anything 'wrong'

jaycee31

Just an update on my case…

My N180 completed and submitted before the deadline.  Also a new Order was issued by the court weeks ago to include the missing £20 of costs via slip rule, but it hasn’t been paid yet.

Two questions, if I may…

Should there be N180s from both Defendant and Claimant?  If so this has also failed to be done.

Should I write to the court to drop them in the sh&t by advising them that the other side have failed to meet their obligations to try to force a dismissal?

jaycee31

jaycee31 said:

Just an update on my case…

My N180 completed and submitted before the deadline.  Also a new Order was issued by the court weeks ago to include the missing £20 of costs via slip rule, but it hasn’t been paid yet.

Two questions, if I may…

Should there be N180s from both Defendant and Claimant?  If so this has also failed to be done.

Should I write to the court to drop them in the sh&t by advising them that the other side have failed to meet their obligations to try to force a dismissal?

Sorry to chase, any views from the community please?

Jenni_D

Both parties are required to file N180 DQs. I believe they are also required to be served on the other party. So check with the CCBC whether the claimant has filed an N180 given that they haven't served a copy on you. (I assume you sent [served] a copy of yours to the claimant?)

Not sure that this procedural lapse would lead to the claim being struck though.

jaycee31

@Jenni_D. Indeed I did.  What about the fact that they haven’t fully settled my costs?

Coupon-mad

Were they ordered to and have missed the date?

I would email the local court to point out the represented Claimant's many omissions and ask that, due to this Claimant wasting everyone's time with an improperly served claim (CCJ now set aside) and now playing fast and loose with court Orders, you ask the Judge to review the case.

Say that you can't afford a formal application but respectfully ask that the Judge uses the court's powers to strike the claim out without an application and to issue a further order for the missing costs.