Adherence to Code of Practice

Thorndorise

Hi all,

This is a distinctly different thread to my other ongoing issue...but it's led me to look into a few things. I'm curious as to the experienced users on this forum (and newbies of course like myself) encountering different aspects of various Private Parking Companies

As part of my deep dives into the minutiae of the Code of practices, I've noticed an huge amount of discrepancy in how different companies implement aspects of the COPs.

I don't think this is covered elsewhere, happy to be corrected.

Some of the standout elements for me are these;

Complaints policy - websites

IPC 21.1 The parking operator must have and follow a documented policy and procedure to receive, evaluate, make and record its decisions on complaints in a non-discriminatory manner, in accordance with the requirements of the accredited parking association (including escalation where the complainant is dissatisfied) to which it belongs, published on its website,

BPA 23.22 You must have and follow a documented policy and procedure to receive, evaluate, make and record your decisions on complaints in a non-discriminatory manner, in accordance with the requirements of the British Parking Association (including escalation where the complainant is dissatisfied), published on your website, 

There seems to be quite a lax approach to this with not all companies having a complaints process on their sites.

Temporary Signs

Where there's any change/material change in T&Cs of parking on a site - companies should/must place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance, for an appropriate period/4 months.

Why is so many Operators fail to do this?
Is that something that is usually in their contracts with a landowner? If so, who is actually responsible for doing this?

Contracts

Do these vary wildly between operators and landowners - I've seen any, but I assume the terms are pretty standard - if so doesn't anyone have some good example of these standard clauses that can be levered?

Naturally I'm aware that the more experienced amongst you would always suggest Plan A - landowner/retailer etc route. Is there anything that we know as a community that can support this approach within the contracts.+?

I'm hoping this may be interesting/useful has I see really mixed results on this forum from companies instantly shocked this has happened to one of their customers and instantly cancel it to total stonewalling and a general give a **** attitude (with a lot quoting there is nothing they can do - but I guess is this actually true? - or do we know that most terms allow the landowners/retailer to cancel them).

'Compensation' Landowner or Operator managed

This is something I saw on my nemesis' website, if you use their App to report cars (i.e. a DIY control of your car park) - for every paid charge issues, they will 'compensate' the reporter with £15. I was gobsmacked, this feels like an inducement to issue tickets if I ever saw one...!

Anyone aware of this elsewhere? Is it common? Where I've seen companies refute making any money from the scheme - other than having their site managed effectively FOC, what's in it for them?

Just some ponderings, would love to know thoughts/experiences.

As an aside, just to ruffle I will be reporting some of the PPCs who haven't followed that COP first guidance shown above.

Coupon-mad

First thing to say is that it will not matter later this year once the new Code of Practice is finally laid and becomes a creature of statute.

THAT will be when to pounce on breaches!

Complaints policy - websites
There seems to be quite a lax approach to this with not all companies having a complaints process on their sites.

This is new (in readiness for the DLUHC Code which requires it) so some haven't finalised their complaints pages yet.

Temporary Signs.  Where there's any change/material change in T&Cs of parking on a site - companies should/must place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance, for an appropriate period/4 months.
Why is so many Operators fail to do this?
Is that something that is usually in their contracts with a landowner? If so, who is actually responsible for doing this?

Again the "4 months" timeline is new and part of the incoming DLUHC Code.  The existing BPA & IPC versions are more wishy-washy. 

 Contracts.  Do these vary wildly between operators and landowners - I've seen any, but I assume the terms are pretty standard - if so doesn't anyone have some good example of these standard clauses that can be levered?

They do vary.  Usually drawn up by the PPC. But again, no leverage here; the contract is between the parties, therefore it's up to them.

We should wait for the DLUHC Code which includes a basic landowner authority statement which is going to be accepted in future.  In other words we won't even see landowner contracts unless a few are released as part of court case evidence, etc.

And the details don't matter much anyway.

The only consideration really is to check that landowner authority exists for whatever the PPC is doing, how, when and where, and that the authorisation covers the date and the defined site/bays/area in question. 

'Compensation' Landowner or Operator managed

This is something I saw on my nemesis' website, if you use their App to report cars (i.e. a DIY control of your car park) - for every paid charge issues, they will 'compensate' the reporter with £15. I was gobsmacked, this feels like an inducement to issue tickets if I ever saw one...!

Yep.  Fairly common with IPC firms.  The BPA banned it years ago and the incoming DLUHC Code will ban it from later this year outright.

Nellymoser

From my experience the problem lies with the BPA who refuse to identify any code breach by their members. In my complaint I evidenced 7 breaches of the Code and one by their own AOS Compliance Officer (she advised me to forward driver details to PPC to enable them to make a decision on my appeal 😈 ) The AOS team claimed they investigated and found no breach of the code by the PPC and AOS officer.

You should have a read of BPA's 142 Trustpilot reviews. 97% are one star. Many reviewers refer to non compliance of code.
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.britishparking.co.uk

Thorndorise

I thought you would be on top of this @Coupon-mad, thanks for your insights.

It's nice to hear that it will be embedded that they will have to have their complaints procedure in place, and to @Nellymoser 's point, It's clear that the IPC & BPA are as useless as wet paper bags in this regard.

@Coupon-mad you do state this is new, (and that some haven't finalised their complaints page yet - this is a massive understatement - see my stats below) I can't speak to BPA's COP, but it's clear that this has been a requirement for Accredited and 'normal' operators since Jan this year for the BPA and IPC, granted that's not long, but really? I looked at some of the websites and I am pretty sure they fail on sooo many fronts...

Also what are the IPC doing to enforce and make their members aware? I did a straw poll of the Accredited Operator Scheme Members of IPC and from the 79 there, only 18 have implemented a published complaints procedure the rest haven't started or literally don't have any offering in this place - I will be watching with baited breath as the new guidance comes in.

The 4 months timeline is in the newest BPA COP so again (- although just looking at v8 it seems that there was no timescale but it does say 'must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes'), no reason for it not to be implemented. And I agree whilst wishy washy they both say they either must or should put temporary notices up (not wishy washy) and only the BPA states the timeline of 4 months, but an appropriate amount of time surely has to be what is expected by a reasonable person - thus, I would say a 3-4 month period....

This is important again as I don't suspect that the vague nature of the COP is any excuse for not doing it at all (don't get me wrong, I know I'm preaching to the fully converted)!!!

Glad to hear BPA have banned it, and that will bear fruit into the new DLUHC Code, as you know IPC have gone on the softly softly approach by suggesting that it can exist but should not incentive volume (although the idea that a reporter gets paid if someone is spooked into paying up - and doesn't know about this forum) - then there will be unscrupulous practice no doubt.


Thanks both for your thoughts and insights...

Coupon-mad

I think the IPC say something like people issuing tickets must not be solely rewarded by targets nor 'only' judged on volume of PCNs...

...In other words, in the IPC's head, ticketers CAN be incentivised by volume of PCNs as long as there's another KPI in place (such as having to do a cartwheel once a day)!  Honestly, you could not make up the IPC's ability to bend over backwards to enable their members! 

the BPA states the timeline of 4 months, but an appropriate amount of time surely has to be what is expected by a reasonable person - thus, I would say a 3-4 month period....

So would I ... and I did ...which is why that's in the DLUHC CoP along with a fair bit of other stuff that you may recognise as "me" (e.g. the use of the forum term 'double dip' is there).

  

Thorndorise

I know that this is a little older now, but have you seen this rubbish! on...https://247advice.co.uk/
I can see their feeble attempt to be 'helpful' but so badly implemented and riddled with piffle...

They've even named a header "Received Parking Charge" did someone forget the 'a'

A classic quote...

If the parking charge was issued by a parking company that is a member of the IPC or the BPA, then the company is legitimate and is complying with the Code of Practise. This means the company can obtain Registered Keeper details from the DVLA.  

What rubbish, also that's not how to spell practice!!!

Also, why is it not front and centre (as it should be from a transparency perspective) that this has been written by or with the support of the IPC and BPA - surely that smacks of being deliberately dishonest about the intentions.

Just weird

Nellymoser

We might start to see this link https://247advice.co.uk/ on all PCNs in the future bit like the Beavis Supreme Court link. 

Thorndorise

Nellymoser said:

We might start to see this link https://247advice.co.uk/ on all PCNs in the future bit like the Beavis Supreme Court link. 

Oh blimey I hope not, can you imagine folk going there not here to get their 'independent' advice! bleurgh!