Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 1
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 19th Sep 09, 7:54 AM
    • 2,609 Posts
    • 7,585 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #2
    • 19th Sep 09, 7:54 AM
    • #2
    • 19th Sep 09, 7:54 AM
    Legally Unenforceable Tickets
    This is an area of concern for us all. The current situation is, when parking on private land the driver enters a contract with the land owner and therefore any ‘parking tickets’ issued as a result of a breach is enforceable through the law of contract. We agree that this area needs further clarification and is, again, something we have been discussing with Government, requesting further, clearer legislation on this area.
    So they are effectively admitting that these are unenforceable, especially if they don't know who was driving.
    Those that continually perpetrate bad practice are not likely to be our members – or would not remain one for long as we have procedures in place for investigating any breaches of our code.
    So the fraudulent and misleading letters from the likes of Excel, NCP, UKCPS, Euro Car Parks, etc. are from companies unlikely to be members - er, hang on, these are some of the biggest players in the PPC industry, and key members of the BPA.


    Fines

    Members must not misrepresent to the public that the parking management work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or some other public authority.
    Clear information about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised must be clear, and the public must not be mislead into believing that the rules being enforced are based upon the powers of an agency regulated by Statute.
    Ha ha ha .... ROFL
    Last edited by bargepole; 19-09-2009 at 8:01 AM.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 40, lost 11), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am a Graduate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
    • peter_the_piper
    • By peter_the_piper 19th Sep 09, 11:22 AM
    • 27,511 Posts
    • 38,714 Thanks
    peter_the_piper
    • #3
    • 19th Sep 09, 11:22 AM
    • #3
    • 19th Sep 09, 11:22 AM
    So they read all the complaints whilst wearing blindfolds, that way they can say they have not seen any problems.
    I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.
  • Coblcris
    • #4
    • 19th Sep 09, 2:04 PM
    • #4
    • 19th Sep 09, 2:04 PM
    Contract law has been long established as is well understood. There is absolutely no need for any more legislation at all.

    In my opinion the BPA's claim that more legislation is needed is not only patently spurious it is also clearly a stalking horse they are trotting out to help their own members and to give themselves some patina of legitimacy.

    This extra legislation should be opposed. To give the BPA any kind of judicial role in a Tribunal would be sheer madness whatever form it took. They clearly operate in the interests of the plaintiffs. They have not enforces their own Code of Practice in any way, this also disqualifies them in my view. Their hands are not clean and they are provably biased.

    I have just linked to artlce posted on the top of this thread.
    Already the misrepresentation and bias of the BPA is shown in full measure.
    For the time being I will use just one illustration out of vent many that arise form the words of the BPA.

    "We suggest that if a parking ticket remains unpaid further action can be taken in stages. Firstly, sending a formal demand, then a reminder letter (optional) and Final demand in which the member must make it clear what action will be taken if payment is not received."

    Their own Code of Practice says that they should not use their initial letter to issue a demand but that it merely should ask for the name of the driver and not mention the amount being sought.

    After reading the BPA's text and considering extant legislation is is now clear in my mind why this is interaction is being sought by the BPA. please make a mental note of the next few paragraphs as they speak to the heart of the matter in my opinion.

    Every Private Parking Company commits multiple breaches of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 including the criminal elements. This legislation completely destroys the methods that the Private Parking Companies use, read the legislation and its will become easily apparent. furthermore I can state with confidence that these regulations have that effect.
    I can also state with absolute certainty that BPA consulted with Trading Standings over this and that this legislation was the cause of the BPA revising its Code of Practice.
    This Code was clearly created to protect the BPA's status with the DVLA. The BPA has not enforced it this clearly showing that they merely operate a protectionist Trade Association and only pay lip service to their code.
    The BPA is clearly looking for a way to circumvent or disregard The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 so that their members may carry on regardless.

    I look forward to the BPA refuting this but they cannot. Meanwhile I suggest that they need to change the text they have released as it fools no one.
    I should add that Private Parking Companies transgress a wide variety of legislation and that the BPA is clearly attempting to ring fence their members from all of it.
    This is a scandal not a forward step at all.

    Beware of Greeks bearing 'gifts'.
    Last edited by Coblcris; 19-09-2009 at 2:26 PM.
  • oldone
    • #5
    • 19th Sep 09, 3:22 PM
    • #5
    • 19th Sep 09, 3:22 PM
    Perhaps the first question to ask the BPA is how many members they have expelled for breaking their 'code'.
  • Coblcris
    • #6
    • 19th Sep 09, 3:47 PM
    • #6
    • 19th Sep 09, 3:47 PM
    None at all. Yet all their members do and there have been many complaints to the BPA about it. The BPA has failed to uphold the DVLA's conditions for continuing as an Approved Trade Association in my opinion. Meanwhile the DVLA continues to charge 2.50 gbp for each request made by these companies.

    I await Kelvin's point by point reponse to post numer four ( #4) above.

    I would also like to draw Martin's attention to the same post as the 'discusion' with the BPA is proceeding in the completely the wrong light in my opinion. If Martin wants detailed examples of how these companies all breach The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 then I will be happy to provide it. The breaches are manifold and in my opinion the criminal elements are clearly breached. My detailed analysis will clearly show this. I would suggest that Martin could ask JK Macleod for his independent opinion. And ask Trading Standards about their consultation with the BPA over the 2008 regulations.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Sep 09, 11:16 PM
    • 78,873 Posts
    • 92,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 19th Sep 09, 11:16 PM
    • #7
    • 19th Sep 09, 11:16 PM
    Quote from the BPA:
    'We welcome the opportunity to work with MoneySavingExpert to help in any way we can the consumer and their queries relating to the industry. We are in the process of setting this up and will engage with your readers in the forums, helping wherever we can.'



    OK lets be 'avin you then, BPA. All you have to do is register with a valid pretty-coloured special BPA username. :rolleyes:

    But I am not quite sure how you will be 'helping' if you can't comment on individual cases and you persist in denying there are any problems among your own members?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • oldone
    • #8
    • 20th Sep 09, 11:05 AM
    • #8
    • 20th Sep 09, 11:05 AM
    PPC's regularly troll forums such as this, using various user names. So now we will have the BPA doing the same.

    What is the betting their 'advice' or help will be along the lines pay the PPC and then use their appeal process.They will also strongly suggest you don't ignore a PPC Invoice.
  • Alx*27
    • #9
    • 20th Sep 09, 11:20 PM
    • #9
    • 20th Sep 09, 11:20 PM
    Let's have a look at some BPA members' tactics and maybe the association would ike to comment on each of these instances...




    NCP - parking tickets claiming they are issued under Railway Byelaws whereas in fact they are mere scam invoice. Absolute fraud and you will see it up and down the country at train station car parks.



    UKCPS - imitation Notice to Owner. Lies about owner/keeper 'requirements' - more fraud.




    G24 - imitation Charge Certificate. Lies about 'responsibility' - more fraud.




    Euro - more attempts to get the keeper/hirer to pay.
    Last edited by Alx*27; 21-09-2009 at 4:55 PM.
  • BritishParkingAssociation company representative
    Hi there and apologies for the delay in responding to the points made. I’ve taken each of the points made and responded below with reference to the poster or posters to help identify which point we’re addressing.

    bargepole

    There is precedent that says on the balance of probabilities the driver of a motor vehicle is the registered keeper unless the registered keeper advises to the contrary. This is why parking companies write to the registered keeper seeking payment for breach of contract. The keeper is at liberty to advise who was driving at the time if they weren’t.

    Coblcris


    To clarify, the BPA do not want to take on a judicial role. Any appeals or adjudication process that is put place to regulate off-street private parking needs to be completely neutral. The BPA is a voluntary member association for the parking industry and therefore could not (and does not want to) take on this role. We have made this very clear. The Daily Mail, early last week, suggested that we might be able to (which is where you may have picked up this idea from) but we have written to the Mail to clarify that the BPA does not want to take on the role of an adjudicator.

    Oldone/coblcris/coupon-mad

    It is correct that we have not yet expelled any members although we are currently in the process of fully investigating two members for serious breaches of the Code.There were also many companies who applied to be members and were turned away.

    Whilst we appreciate that expelling a member would seem to be the ultimate punishment and perhaps seem like the most satisfying outcome for the public, as the current situation stands (i.e. there is no requirement to be a BPA or other ATA member) it would only result in that company still being able to practice and not having any Code of Practice to comply with at all. We firmly believe that rectifying the issues by working with the company to sort out the problems is a better solution than expelling a company and not having any contact or influence with them in the future.

    Alx*27

    It is not for the BPA to comment on any particular form of action used. The BPA believes that it would be fairer for everyone if the law was able to define and describe a ‘parking ticket’ and that a universal form existed for all operators – this is currently not the case and therefore confusing for all.

    Until the government makes this happen and better regulation comes in to existence car park operators will have to interpret the Law of Contract and Consumer Protection Regulations themselves. This can, and does, lead to a variety of documents and forms which sometimes cause confusion and uncertainty amongst the motorist.

    Where a motorist decides to park on a piece of private land and there is a risk of trespass or breach of contract a landowner will have the right of redress which is usually delivered in the form of parking enforcement notice The ‘parking ticket’ is an easily understood mechanism for communication between the landowner (or his agent/operator) and the motorist and therefore is regularly used. Clarity in this area is a must and we hope the government will act soon on this.

    In relation to the NCP ticket example:

    There are many Railway Byelaws under the various Railways Acts and these are legally enforceable. The train company or station operator may use contractors to undertake this parking enforcement. It is a matter for the railways how they do this and any appeals to such enforcement acts must be made using the mechanisms established by the Railways Acts and Byelaws.



    I hope I've answered all the points made but please do come back to me if I've missed anything or something needs clarifying.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of the British Parking Association. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • downhiller
    • By downhiller 28th Sep 09, 2:29 PM
    • 123 Posts
    • 80 Thanks
    downhiller
    There is precedent that says on the balance of probabilities the driver of a motor vehicle is the registered keeper unless the registered keeper advises to the contrary. This is why parking companies write to the registered keeper seeking payment for breach of contract. The keeper is at liberty to advise who was driving at the time if they weren’t.


    The RK is under no obligation to say who was driving at the time. The RK is in no way responsible for the actions of anyone else driving the car, therefore they cannot be held responsible for parking tickets they did not receive.

    Yet time and time again members of your organisation harass the RK with letters filled with lies in an attempt to get the RK to pay.


    Where a motorist decides to park on a piece of private land and there is a risk of trespass or breach of contract a landowner will have the right of redress which is usually delivered in the form of parking enforcement notice The ‘parking ticket’ is an easily understood mechanism for communication between the landowner (or his agent/operator) and the motorist and therefore is regularly used. Clarity in this area is a must and we hope the government will act soon on this.
    There's no need for any "act" from the government. Landowners can only recoup their losses, not the exorbitant penalties that a PPC will try to extort.

    Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915) has already established that a private company cannot issue penalties
    • sarahg1969
    • By sarahg1969 28th Sep 09, 3:21 PM
    • 6,429 Posts
    • 10,821 Thanks
    sarahg1969
    "In relation to the NCP ticket example:

    There are many Railway Byelaws under the various Railways Acts and these are legally enforceable. The train company or station operator may use contractors to undertake this parking enforcement. It is a matter for the railways how they do this and any appeals to such enforcement acts must be made using the mechanisms established by the Railways Acts and Byelaws."


    That is all entirely irrelevant to the fact that NCP are issuing fraudulent invoices purporting to be issued under railway byelaws when they are not.

    "There is precedent that says on the balance of probabilities the driver of a motor vehicle is the registered keeper unless the registered keeper advises to the contrary"

    You can't say there's a "precedent" without saying what it is. Come, now.
    • Vomityspice
    • By Vomityspice 28th Sep 09, 4:21 PM
    • 628 Posts
    • 584 Thanks
    Vomityspice
    As a lowly trainee solicitor (Currently completing my LPC), your use of the word 'precedent' is utterly misleading.

    "There is precedent that says on the balance of probabilities the driver of a motor vehicle is the registered keeper unless the registered keeper advises to the contrary"

    Where does this misinformation come from? or is it just made up to suit your views?

    As Sarahg1969 correctly states, exactly which case are you referring to?

    I'm happy to do some free legal research on Lexis Nexis or Westlaw to find this legal precedent, and on first search I have yet to find the case to which you are referring?

    I'm happy to be guided by you, just let me know the case you are referring to, or alternatively withdraw the above statement as you must know (or should know) that it is false.
    • nicechap
    • By nicechap 28th Sep 09, 4:40 PM
    • 1,895 Posts
    • 3,303 Thanks
    nicechap
    Perhaps the BPA could tell us whether this firm is a member, and, irrespective of whether they are or not, what action they would take against them for this breach of the SIA licence?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8268858.stm
    Originally Posted by shortcrust
    "Contact the Ministry of Fairness....If sufficient evidence of unfairness is discovered you’ll get an apology, a permanent contract with backdated benefits, a ‘Let’s Make it Fair!’ tshirt and mug, and those guilty of unfairness will be sent on a Fairness Awareness course."
    • nicechap
    • By nicechap 28th Sep 09, 4:56 PM
    • 1,895 Posts
    • 3,303 Thanks
    nicechap
    & should clampers be able to clamp people on their own property?

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1953921
    Originally Posted by shortcrust
    "Contact the Ministry of Fairness....If sufficient evidence of unfairness is discovered you’ll get an apology, a permanent contract with backdated benefits, a ‘Let’s Make it Fair!’ tshirt and mug, and those guilty of unfairness will be sent on a Fairness Awareness course."
  • BritishParkingAssociation company representative
    Able Parking
    Perhaps the BPA could tell us whether this firm is a member, and, irrespective of whether they are or not, what action they would take against them for this breach of the SIA licence?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8268858.stm
    Originally posted by nicechap
    No, Able Parking are not members of the BPA. The situation with SIA licences is currently tricky as they apply to an individual rather than a company so the company would not be at fault, although the individual may be.

    However, it is worth bearing in mind - purely as a note of warning so that readers don't find themselves in the same situation - that blue badges are not necessarily valid on private land; it is up to the landowner whether they wish to treat the same as in an on-street situation.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of the British Parking Association. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
  • BritishParkingAssociation company representative
    As a lowly trainee solicitor (Currently completing my LPC), your use of the word 'precedent' is utterly misleading.

    "There is precedent that says on the balance of probabilities the driver of a motor vehicle is the registered keeper unless the registered keeper advises to the contrary"

    Where does this misinformation come from? or is it just made up to suit your views?

    As Sarahg1969 correctly states, exactly which case are you referring to?

    I'm happy to do some free legal research on Lexis Nexis or Westlaw to find this legal precedent, and on first search I have yet to find the case to which you are referring?

    I'm happy to be guided by you, just let me know the case you are referring to, or alternatively withdraw the above statement as you must know (or should know) that it is false.
    Originally posted by Vomityspice

    I believe there is a precedent however I am not familiar with it off the top of my head (I was provided with this information by a colleague). I will check this and get back to you.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of the British Parking Association. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
  • Driver8
    No, Able Parking are not members of the BPA. The situation with SIA licences is currently tricky as they apply to an individual rather than a company so the company would not be at fault, although the individual may be.

    However, it is worth bearing in mind - purely as a note of warning so that readers don't find themselves in the same situation - that blue badges are not necessarily valid on private land; it is up to the landowner whether they wish to treat the same as in an on-street situation.
    Originally posted by BritishParkingAssociation company representative
    BPACR. You cannot defend the indefensible.

    You know it, i know it in fact we all now know your days are numbered for your scamming members using dubious threats, intimidation and god knows what else just to extort money from people who didn't know they were being scammed.

    Just take a look at all the views the threads on this forum have generated. Hundreds of thousands and no doubt those hundreds of thousands have passed the knowledge on to others too.

    Did you come on here to try and justify scamming members of the public just to keep your scamming members happy?

    In your two posts you have offered nothing new to the forum.

    People are awakening massively to your scam invoice con and i would love to know how much money your members have been losing in the last few months due to people being aware of this scam. Got any figures?

    I am absolutely delighted some of your members will soon be losing jobs and you lot deserve everything that is coming your way.

    I re-iterate you cannot defend the indefensible, your days are numbered.
    • nicechap
    • By nicechap 28th Sep 09, 5:30 PM
    • 1,895 Posts
    • 3,303 Thanks
    nicechap
    No, Able Parking are not members of the BPA. The situation with SIA licences is currently tricky as they apply to an individual rather than a company so the company would not be at fault, although the individual may be.

    However, it is worth bearing in mind - purely as a note of warning so that readers don't find themselves in the same situation - that blue badges are not necessarily valid on private land; it is up to the landowner whether they wish to treat the same as in an on-street situation.
    Originally posted by BritishParkingAssociation company representative
    So if Able Securities were members of the BPA, you would take no action against them and the BPA support the clamping of disabled drivers on private land?

    EDIT: to confirm my understanding and clarify the original question re-stated above: only SIA licenced operators can affix clamps to cars on private land, the SIA would take this person or company's licence away for doing this, but BPA support, or at the very least, do not oppose, the clamping of disabled drivers on private land.
    Last edited by nicechap; 29-09-2009 at 10:22 AM.
    Originally Posted by shortcrust
    "Contact the Ministry of Fairness....If sufficient evidence of unfairness is discovered you’ll get an apology, a permanent contract with backdated benefits, a ‘Let’s Make it Fair!’ tshirt and mug, and those guilty of unfairness will be sent on a Fairness Awareness course."
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 28th Sep 09, 5:34 PM
    • 9,032 Posts
    • 13,987 Thanks
    trisontana
    So the BPA rep admits that "blue badges are not necessarily valid on private land". But members of his organization issue "fines" for so-called contraventions of disabled parking bays. You can't have it both ways!
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

258Posts Today

2,419Users online

Martin's Twitter