'NEw' joint BPA and IPC Code of Practice issued 27th June 2024

Computersaysno

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3g03ejjl1yo

here's a copy of actual COP...

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1260624.pdf

Zbubuman

Will need to have a proper read of this, but from what i have heard so far it is heavily skewed in their favor. 

I love it how they want to self regulate whilst they all sleep in the same bed.

I liken it to being invited to a poker game where the person you are playing is a known cheat, and the dealer is his mother who is also a cheat, and they tell you "Don't worry, it will be a fair game; just make sure you bring plenty of cash with you! "

Half_way

I still find it slightly amusing ( or should that be concerning) that they think someone with a camera  taking photos when a passenger decides to get out of a vehicle at an airport ( for example) can improve "security"

 I'm sure the threat of a "parking charge notice" in the post a few days later would deter any terrorist attack

fisherjim

Zbubuman said:

Will need to have a proper read of this, but from what i have heard so far it is heavily skewed in their favor. 

I love it how they want to self regulate whilst they all sleep in the same bed.

I liken it to being invited to a poker game where the person you are playing is a known cheat, and the dealer is his mother who is also a cheat, and they tell you "Don't worry, it will be a fair game; just make sure you bring plenty of cash with you! "

Totally agree

A few real stand out scamming clauses in there to be sure:

Where a parking charge becomes over due an additional £70 can be added, really, why?

Notice that concerning the annual audit it now confirms that 1. it can be done remotely or in person! 2. it will include reviewing signage templates! What use is that? 

However when appealing the following can now be called in as evidence:

Where signage is poor misleading or missing ask for the last on site random audit records, and the audit records for self ticketing sites quoted in the "Ongoing Surveillance section

LDast

During a jet-lag induced period of insomnia, I was trying to solve my dilemma by reading the now, newly published first edition of the Single Code of Practice between the BPA and IPC and noticed the fingerprints of that little piece of poo, Will Hurley embedded in a section on Parking Charge:

8.1.3: The parking operator must ensure that the notice does not invite or require the recipient to provide a stamped addressed envelope as a prerequisite for their appeal.

in the explanatory note associated with this bit, see if you can spot the devious little man’s contribution:

NOTE: Whilst the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allow parking operators to issue a parking charge to a vehicle keeper or vehicle-hire firm, operators must not when issuing a parking charge presume that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time without offering them the opportunity to identify the driver. Where the keeper fails or refuses to identify the driver it may be used as evidence they were the driver unless the keeper is able to evidence they were not.

Clue for the uninitiated…read the last sentence and see how they try to shift the burden of proof.

Full document available here:

Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice

Also noticed this bit on liability which goes against established law:

Liability

It is the driver that is liable for the parking charge.

NOTE: The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer. Where a keeper

or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver when

requested to, it may be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or refusal.

The inmates really are running the asylum.

fisherjim

"Where the keeper fails or refuses to identify the driver it may be used as evidence they were the driver"

I think Hurley Burley has taken full leave of his senses where on earth is the tangible evidence in that?

"The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer"

Conversely the driver is often not the same person as the keeper or hirer!

This is just another smoke and mirrors load of twaddle from a scammers old boys's club.

1505grandad

However I am sure it is perfectly acceptable to the DVLA so they can continue to sell motorists personal data to the scammers (Hansard)

Zbubuman

fisherjim said:

"Where the keeper fails or refuses to identify the driver it may be used as evidence they were the driver"

I think Hurley Burley has taken full leave of his senses where on earth is the tangible evidence in that?

"The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer"

Conversely the driver is often not the same person as the keeper or hirer!

This is just another smoke and mirrors load of twaddle from a scammers old boys's club.

I'm not suggesting anyone does this. But sometimes I wonder how the parking companies would respond if you give them details of a relative who lives abroad ( oh YES! , I had my brother in law visit us for a few days and he was using my car. Here is a copy of his international driving licence. His current address is XXXX, Osaka, Japan. BYE!)

paulstevens64

I have literally just done that to help a friend. He had ignored a ticket,  and got to £170. We outed the "driver" (a relative) who lived in Ireland. So delete "our records" as you have no cause to process our data any longer, received a cancellation by return.

Fruitcake

As long as it is true, there is no problem at all providing the details of a driver who lives outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts. The law, the PoFA, does not require an address to be within the UK.