British Parking Association - Parking News articles discussion

Coupon-mad · 2 August 2022 at 2:50AM

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/395/26/ ***SCS Law on what it means to 'begin proceedings' (transfer liability)***
They confirm the correct interpretation. Useful to screenshot that and use it as an exhibit in a case where a PPC is telling stories to the court about an imaginary '28 day deadline to transfer liability'. Not according to the law.

May
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/396/1/

June
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/397/1/

July
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/398/1/

August
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/399/1/ Litigation in Lockdown on page 19 - the rise of the remote hearing.

September
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/400/1/

October
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/401/1/

November
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/402/1/

December
http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/403/1/
An early article about the PAS232 Steering Group that I was part of (page 38) where it was hoped that we'd have seen the new Code in place by 2021 (haha!):
http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/403/38/

2021

February
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/404/1/
Not much to see there. POPLA appeals continued to be adjourned due to COVID (page 8).

March
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/405/1/

page 46: The BPA and ParkingEye lobbied Government to try to get Local Authorities to be allowed to use ANPR for parking 'enforcement' again, to 'embrace the benefits' such as security surveillance (errrr...what?) and the 'rich data' - usual crap PPC phrase - and using COVID as an excuse to forget the Deregulation Act of 2015, that had banned ANPR. The Government told them where to go!

And SCS Law on p22 blathering on about dispute resolution hearings, the short 30 minute hearings where DDJs who often have no idea about parking cases, try to get Defendants to settle. Apparently about 50% of people are settling because the Judges are telling them (often wrongly) that they have no defence. Amusingly, SCS rant about boilerplate defences & forums, and bemoan (as if it's unfair) that the bar to blame Defendants for unreasonable conduct is so high that costs can't be claimed. Waaaahhh!

April 2021
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/406/1/

May 2021
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/407/1/

June, July & August 2021
Parking News published 3 articles about VAT:

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/408/36/

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/409/34/

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/410/22/

...interestingly totally silent about the fact that VAT does apply to costs which are for the purpose of debt recovery admin. I wonder if all the PPCs and DCAs that invent the £60 or £70 are declaring that income for VAT?

September
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/411/1/

October
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/412/1/

November
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/413/1/

December
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/414/1/

2022

February
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/415/1/

March
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/416/1/

April
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/417/1/ *** Highlights: 'NO SMALL CHANGE' p18 ***

'No small whinge', more like! Stewart Clure (Devlin?) of UKPC - oh no sorry, DR Plus nowadays - actually admits that nearly half of the victims they pursue have multiple PCNs. No wonder the likes of DCB 'collected £24m' last year, given they slapped an extra £70 per PCN on top. Kerchiiiing!! ...and the article tells us that DRPlus & DCBL are among those behind the legal challenge against the ban on that 'extortion' (DLUHC Minister's word).

May
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/418/1/

June
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/portfolio/Parking-News/419/1/

July
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/420/1/ *** Gloating about the Judicial Reviews, Derek Millard-Smith (PPCs' pet 'lawyer') on p34/35 ***

And Steve Clark on page 8 wrongly claims that allowing the false DRA 'fee' somehow stops courts being 'swamped'. Pull the other one. The courts ARE swamped now, and have been ever since the Beavis case and Gary Osner (or the IPC /Gladstones, depending on your view of the history) brought to the table the bright idea: "let's add £60 or £70 on top of parking charges to share the spoils, and make a fortune."

August
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/421/1/

September
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/422/1/

October
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/423/1/

Coupon-mad · 2 August 2022 at 2:51AM

Some August edition highlights:

pages 14-16
Interesting and some might say unprofessional rant about the Government, from Debt Recovery Plus' finest who goes by the name of Stewart Clure nowadays.

He also takes an unnecessary swipe at Steve Gooding of the RAC Foundation.

pages 22-23
BPA rent-a-lawyer Derek Millard Smith* concluding that the ICO decision against the DVLA won't affect the parking industry in a 'nothing to see here/business as usual my friends' article

*infamous for his dedication to 'helping speeding drivers stay on the road', reportedly:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/innovation/hill-dickinson-launches-speeders-smart-862994

page 41
As discussed earlier on this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6376123/all-bpas-parking-on-private-land-group-council-of-representatives-are-now-dras-litigators#latest

We see that the three Parking on Private Land Representatives on the policy-influencing 'BPA Council' are all from firms heavily invested in the race to court. All of them DRAs or bulk litigators. You can see the direction of travel of the BPA's likely submissions to Government about the unconscionable 'DRA fees' despite 'Stewart Clure' publicly 'slagging off' the Government and specifically, the 'junior staff' at the DLUHC, in an earlier page of that edition.

pages 43 and 44
The BPA's Director of Corporate and Public Affairs, Kelvin Reynolds also weighs in against the Government with a 'pot, kettle, black' cliché-ridden rant.

Once again he spreads the myth that PPCs only want higher PCN levels because it needs to be high (he says) to work as an 'effective deterrent' against all those rogue drivers out there, hordes of ne'er-do-wells, making it their life's mission to block the recovery of High Streets by setting up camp in retail car parks.

As usual, spouting the usual consumer blame culture and scaremongering about carmageddon. He likes that word. Used it a lot in a previous edition of Parking News.

He also tries to draw (completely inaccurate and misleading IMHO) similarities between the false 'DRA fee/pre-court gaslighting' extortion that the Government intends to ban, with actual bailiff fees.

Ahem, those fees are explained here, and only apply after a charge is considered a 'debt', having reached and gone past court, or equivalent actual and FINAL legal 'enforcement' stage.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/how-bailiffs-should-treat-you/check-bailiffs-fees/

He also fails to point out that, unlike Local Authorities, where the 'PCN' is a penalty (which can be set at a level and can increase purely to punish and deter) in PPC la-la land the parking charge itself has to cover all the costs of the operation and profit. In other words, the chaser letters in this cheap letter chain model ARE already covered and paid for within the escalated (full) parking charge.

So said the Supreme Court Judges at paras 98, 100, 193 and 198. 'None of this means ParkingEye could charge whatever it liked' said Lord Neuberger, echoing what HHJ Hegarty QC had said in P/Eye v Somerfield in 2011 (from para 414 onwards in a section headed Were the Charges Penalties?):

"the pleaded case is not that the charge of £75 itself is a penalty but only the enhanced amount payable in default. [...] It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment.

In relation to these various contractual issues affecting the users of the car parks, therefore, I conclude that any motorist using the car park would be contractually bound to pay the charge of £75 if he exceeded the specified time limit and a demand for payment was made upon him. Whilst he might argue that the charge in question amounted to a penalty and was therefore irrecoverable, I think he would probably fail in that contention. But it seems to me, on the limited material presently before me, that he would probably succeed in any argument that the increase to £135 in the event of a failure to pay within the specified period did amount to a penalty."

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

Anyway, according to Kelvin Reynolds at the BPA, their AOS members are losing out on costs and should be allowed to charge 'fees' three times, layered on top of an already-doubled parking charge:

1. Firstly, as a pseudo bailiff fee before court (even if the alleged 'debt' is not recovered and the PPC has not sent any chaser letters nor incurred any extra costs at all;

then

2. Once again at court stage by layering on 'legal fees' (capped at £50)

then

3. If they get a CCJ, the BPA reckons their finest members can get their mates (and fellow BPA or IPC member) Enforcement Agents to add bailiff fees all over again. Really? Again?

Someone somewhere might be wondering about this in PPC World: "Oh wait, haven't we already charged that 'fee' once? Even Local Authorities who issue real penalties can only add 50%, then £8 at Charge Cert/OFR stage. Never mind, no-one will notice we are trying to get bailiff fees twice...shhhh, hopefully the new DLUHC Ministers will be more credulous than Neil O'Brien MP was."

And the parking industry wonders why they have such a bad reputation...this isn't the way to win friends and influence people.

patient_dream · 2 August 2022 at 9:14AM

I must admit that I find that the Parking news website so poor, it's like a child has done it.

Your highlights are perfect for all of us, thanks

The BPA is now a hub for money scammers and it's amazing how the BPA have stooped so low.

When government gave the BPA a licence to be an ATA, doubtful they ever thought that they licenced probably the biggest money scam in this country

You mention Clure ? the boss of the now infamous circus clowns. When I watched him with the other 3 stooges, he came across as an idiot and clearly he still is

Get rid of this BPA hub as all those years ago, they pulled the wool over government eyes ..... will government be scammed again

The hair brained ideas of the BPA and their amigos WILL LOSE VOTES FOR THE GOVERNMENT at a time when they are desperate to get public support

These money scammers have no place in society

Trainerman · 2 August 2022 at 12:22PM

The trouble is, that their siren song sounds so seductive. Shopping centres dying because the car parking is all taken up by non shoppers, poor residents who cannot park by their property because of commuters. "To solve it we need bigger deterrents and then to help the courts by charging debt recovery costs. We are on your side folks, we just want to help."

The government could fall for this, and the smooth patter of articles like "Pot, Kettle, Black"

They even say that all it will take is for us to be educated, on where the £70 extra goes, for example.

No mention of signs that cannot be read, far less complied with. No mention of the residents in a block actually being a soft target. No mention of the fact that things could be done easily ( like paying on exit, so no confusion as to charge), no mention of the fact that many places are sheer entrapment. . No mention that the real 'cost' involved in the £70 extra is four mass produced letters, often sent to the wrong address. No, they make up fantasy lists of what their 'diligent' staff do before letters go out.

We know different, but if we do not really 'pull our fingers out', the smooth talking ( backed with loadsamoney) will baffle the gullible, and we will be in trouble.

Part of the problem is that if you have not had a ticket and experienced the non listening and the bullying, it is a non issue.

We need to be organized and on the ball. I for one will be telling everyone I can get hold of to do the consultation, once it is live

patient_dream · 2 August 2022 at 1:31PM

Their siren song so to speak is just total rubbish.
Government knows this hence the new code and the banning of fakes

The BPA rubbish goes back years, remember their upskirt CEO on BBC Watchdog ? talk about waffle, the man was a complete fool.

Nothing has changed except there is now a cartel in operation

This mega scam has evolved since government were duped with POFA2012

As you say ... We do need to be organized and on the ball and let government understand that allowing the mega scam will not only be dangerous to the public but government itself

Coupon-mad · 2 August 2022 at 2:39PM

The Government (Neil O'Brien) knew this but will the new Ministers take the same view? Who knows. Hence we must have evidence to back up what we say at the Public Consultation later this year.

We all know how damn close the DLUHC got to getting the pseudo-bailiff fee extortion badly wrong, by actually thinking what a jolly wheeze it would be to add it to the signs then all would be well.

They were so close to ruining motorists and handing multi-millions and extra power to the parking industry. I sincerely hope they know that now and really understand how close they came to disaster.

This will not be a shoo-in but articles slagging off the Government really don't reflect well on the BPA. At least any slagging off the IPC do is behind closed doors, not in public.

Kelvin Reynolds articles are almost always cliche crap IMHO but Stewart Clure's words spitting vitriol at Junior staff at DLUHC, who he wrongly thinks were responsible for banning DRA fees to distract the country from 'Partygate' is just laughable.

patient_dream · 2 August 2022 at 2:59PM

I think we have enough proof that a cartel is operating, which is not legal
A JR will cost a lot money, it will not just be one company or legal funding this, it will be a cartel chip in

Since the bill was made law, the parking companies and dodgy legals have gone out of their way to prove that Sir Greg Knight's bill is correct and that DLUHC is also correct

"but Stewart Clure/Devlin's words spitting vitriol at Junior staff at DLUHC, who he wrongly thinks were responsible for banning DRA fees to distract the country from 'Partygate' is just laughable."

Did he really say that ???? WHAT A COMPLETE FOOL

Just another day at the BPA offices, do they pay their cleaners extra with so much rubbish around

Castle · 2 August 2022 at 3:39PM

patient_dream said:

I think we have enough proof that a cartel is operating, which is not legal
A JR will cost a lot money, it will not just be one company or legal funding this, it will be a cartel chip in

Since the bill was made law, the parking companies and dodgy legals have gone out of their way to prove that Sir Greg Knight's bill is correct and that DLUHC is also correct

"but Stewart Clure/Devlin's words spitting vitriol at Junior staff at DLUHC, who he wrongly thinks were responsible for banning DRA fees to distract the country from 'Partygate' is just laughable."

Did he really say that ???? WHAT A COMPLETE FOOL

Just another day at the BPA offices, do they pay their cleaners extra with so much rubbish around

Maybe the cleaners "work" for free but "charge" £100 for each piece of rubbish dropped on the floor-sort of "no littering- £100 charge if you drop a piece of litter".

patient_dream · 2 August 2022 at 5:25PM

Castle said:

patient_dream said:

I think we have enough proof that a cartel is operating, which is not legal
A JR will cost a lot money, it will not just be one company or legal funding this, it will be a cartel chip in

Since the bill was made law, the parking companies and dodgy legals have gone out of their way to prove that Sir Greg Knight's bill is correct and that DLUHC is also correct

"but Stewart Clure/Devlin's words spitting vitriol at Junior staff at DLUHC, who he wrongly thinks were responsible for banning DRA fees to distract the country from 'Partygate' is just laughable."

Did he really say that ???? WHAT A COMPLETE FOOL

Just another day at the BPA offices, do they pay their cleaners extra with so much rubbish around

Maybe the cleaners "work" for free but "charge" £100 for each piece of rubbish dropped on the floor-sort of "no littering- £100 charge if you drop a piece of litter".

Haha, the cleaners would be very rich in Haywards Heath

Coupon-mad · 2 September 2022 at 2:26AM

September 2022 edition out now:
https://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/portfolio/Parking-News/422/1/

page 22 is of note.

BPA's pet 'speeding loophole' lawyer Derek Millard Smith rambles on about how he thinks the DLUHC has got it wrong and that setting lower parking charge levels is somehow the DLUHC presuming that the rest of the Code of Practice will fail.

IMHO his reasoning makes no sense.

Of course some unfair NPCs will continue for a number of years, because the industry is basically rotten, and almost none of them can get to grips with the facts that:

(a) an enforcement-focussed model in private parking MUST be condemned as a thing of the past,

and

(b) what PPCs do is meant to be about parking management, not about penalising as many people as they damn well can,

and

(c) drivers simply do not go into car parks and weigh up whether the 'penalty' is worth the overstay (or whatever)! They simply don't see the signs. PROMINENT SIGNS are what makes a credible deterrent, not the money.

Does he not know any nudge theory?
https://9mconsulting.com/newsletter/the-three-elements-to-nudge-change-management/

There are specific key elements to nudge change management which turn the theory into practice.

Not Economic Incentivized. Try to take money off the table.
Human-Centered. Put the person first and try to make their lives better.
Voluntary: "True nudges cannot be coercive."

PPCs employ their own 'sledgehammer theory' and IMHO the DLUHC are simply trying to crack that nut once and for all...by nudging the PPCs to change their behaviours.

Most PPCs don't want to change but they will have to, if they are to survive. That means a tech-based consumer-friendly parking management approach as a service, where the bulk of the revenue doesn't come from NPCs.

Re this evolving thread:

I've also started to add useful old issues to post #1, which should make it easier to find things like the SCS Law article about the POFA right to transfer liability to the driver at any time before court claim.

pinkelephant12 · 2 September 2022 at 4:42AM

Many years ago when I studied Sociology, I remember being taught about a fully researched study on crime or motoring (can't remember which). The researchers concluded that the level of penalty did not deter people; it was the likelihood of getting caught which was the real deterrent. On this basis, prominent signage with reference to ANPR camera and making the cameras very obvious would be far more likely to stop bad parking than the threat of high charges for those who break the rules.

Are there any Sociologists or Criminologists out there who can reference any useful research?

Some relevant theories here regarding crime prevention that could be transferred to parking rather than imposing high penalties.

https://www.college.police.uk/research/what-works-policing-reduce-crime/what-stops-people-offending

British Parking Association - Parking News articles discussion

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free