notomob.co.uk

General Category => General No To Mob Discussion => Topic started by: Web Admin on 21 April, 2015, 07:09:18 PM

Title: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: Web Admin on 21 April, 2015, 07:09:18 PM
We at the NoToMob have noticed that the BPA Ltd have taken away its facility for commenting on its Monday Musing. The reasons for this are:

1. They do not want any criticism to appear on their own website.
2. There is no appetite within the BPA Ltd for openness/transparency/accountability/criticism (constructive or otherwise).
3. The fact that the facility for comment has now been withdrawn (it was there when the Monday Musing was first put up but was taken down after negative comments (sometimes deleted by the BPA Ltd) indicates confirmation of 1 and 2.

Therefore the NoToMob would like to reinstate the comments facility on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing and extend this to any blogs/posts on the BPA Ltd website.
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: Web Admin on 21 April, 2015, 07:11:52 PM
Monday Musing: Testing the temperature of parking as Election fever sets in
Posted: 20/04/2015 10:47 Views: 83 Comments: 0

Election Fever is with us. Coalition; Confidence and Supply Agreements, so called hung Parliaments, minority Government - all phrases that have been banded about in recent times and all relevant in varying degrees. Just what style and flavour of Government will we see emerging in the coming days and weeks?

The most stable Coalition the UK has seen for a very long time has finished as Parliament ended its fixed five year term at the end of March. All accompanied with a flurry of small but significant changes in law to alter the way Government expected parking to be managed in England in the future. And Mr Pickles launched another Discussion Paper on parking in the dying hours of Parliament! So the heat is still on…

Mandatory grace periods are in; CCTV, except in defined circumstances is out. Some great headlines. But will in really make a difference? Most local Councils have operated Grace Periods for decades and most if not all of the use of CCTV for parking enforcement occurs at the locations where it is allowed to continue. Perhaps it’s more a case of rising damp?

The BPA continues to call for a clarification of the law and believe restrictions in the use of new technologies and management methods are hampering councils’ ability to better manage off-street car parks by ensuring the best use of spaces, improving access for disabled people, introducing user-friendly payment options and reducing operating costs. Our next Government should take the first opportunity they have to make the law on the use of new technology in off-street parking clearer in order to allow councils to do what they believe is best for their high streets.

Hot on the heels of being given responsibility for Government policy on all off-street parking, the Department for Communities has issued what it calls a Discussion Paper and Call for Evidence on two core issues, perceived unfair practices in the management of parking on private land and anecdotally the seeming inability to use cash to pay for parking in local authority car parks.

Two important words here in the Discussion Paper: anecdotal and evidence.  Most recent parking law has been based upon Anecdotes, Niceties, Posturing and Rhetoric (or ANPR for short) with little or no real evidence and let’s hope we are now going to get some serious discussion and research to understand what is really going on with some genuine and credible evidence to back up any proposals.

We have a good working relationship with DCLG officials and we have been briefing them for a good while now about how and why parking needs to be and is managed. It’s good therefore to see this paper recognising that “appropriate parking control is vital to ensure that parking facilities remain accessible and provide value for money, both for the landowners providing access to their property, and for the drivers accessing the land”. Moreover it claims “It is Government’s responsibility to strike the right balance between protecting the right of land owners to control the use of their land and benefit fairly from it, and protecting drivers and shoppers from unscrupulous practices”. They’ve never said that before! Are we really about to get some proper regulation instead of the complex legal muddle which is out there now?

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Blog/monday-musing-testing-the-temperature-of-parking-as-election-fever-sets-in-/790 (http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Blog/monday-musing-testing-the-temperature-of-parking-as-election-fever-sets-in-/790)
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 21 April, 2015, 10:09:47 PM
Oh look! The same old bollocks being rehashed again. We've certainly never heard that old shit before. Well maybe once or twice, or three times or four times.

<Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>

"Most local Councils have operated Grace Periods for decades and most if not all of the use of CCTV for parking enforcement occurs at the locations where it is allowed to continue."

The BPA Ltd, along with all the other little piggies who financially benefit from parking, have not stopped bitching and whining about the grace period and how it will prevent cars from parking thus ending in gridlock. The gridlock never happened before though when Council's operated voluntary grace periods. Do you not see how galactically f :o cking stupid you really are? Web Admin as called for us to basically rip you a new one but you are doing a great job all by yourselves.

The second bit of that sentence, according to you, CCTV usage has not changed. Oh really? I wouldn't think so listening to your constant bitching and whining about it. "Oh please can we have our $camera cars back Uncle Eric. All those places where we haven't been using them, we'd like to not use them some more."

And as for ANPR, you know what it stands for so don't pretend you don't.


(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5152.0;attach=5605;image)
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: DastardlyDick on 21 April, 2015, 11:25:36 PM
I quite liked Mr Trouser Fire's new version of ANPR - the rest was utter shite!
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 June, 2015, 11:20:36 AM

Monday Musing: Devolution – what does it mean?
08 June 2015

Devolution – what does it mean? (This is your first hint of what it truly means to the BPA Ltd)

The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, published on the 29th May and had it’s 2nd reading last Monday,  it proposes to allow more control over transport, housing, training and more to be devolved to cities, towns & counties. What does it mean for parking? (second hint)

It’s only fair, if the government are considering giving further powers to the 5 million+ in Scotland why not also provide further powers to the 5 million+ people living in the West Midlands. The official premise is this presupposes there is an unofficial premise, to “boost economic growth and rebalance the economy closing the decades-old economic gap between the north and the south”. So far we can see the bill proposes combined authorities streamlining local governance, and directly elected mayors chairing the authorities to control the powers awarded.

It worked for London didn’t it? (that's questionable) Following the establishment of Greater London they’ve produced London transport, the integrated transport system that serves the 8 million+ living there and any commuters travelling to London every day. Will the other cities get similar destinies?

Mini London’s could be the way forward for many cities across the UK. Greater transport and planning controls (third hint) could mean many changes for good. One could be pavement parking being made illegal not only in London but in other busy cities too, (you’d think it would be already!) creating safer pavements and footways for pedestrians and easier less congested journeys for motorists. (fourth hint)

The bill could mean we see integrated transport that regularly review penalty charges to ensure the level of charge continues to achieve its objective of encouraging compliance with parking rules. (BINGO! We have a winner! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!) Out of date charges that do not reflect the area are unsustainable, promoting disregard for local traffic regulations. The level of charge may reflect the area the ticket was received in; a parked car on a busy street in a city has significantly greater effects on traffic management than a parked car in a rural village. Although 80% of motorists never receive a PCN[1] for the non compliant motorist it could cause some confusion with the different level of charges and different laws for different counties. (Standard Operational Bullshit! If I get a fine from a local authority I am not confused about its amount!)

We too have recognised the call for devolution; our Master Plan for the UK sets out what we must do together to raise standards in the parking profession, we have variations for Scotland and Wales. We are currently developing our Master Plan for Parking 2015-16 which will be launched at the President’s Reception on 29th June. We can’t wait to share it with you. (Here's a hint. - Today England, Scotland and Vales! Next year ZE VORLD!)

The devolution bill promises to deliver radical devolution to the great cities of England it would empower our towns and counties, supporting regeneration in the communities they serve. We hope to see the development of the profession to ensure effective traffic management (and to ensure the industry continues to target the easiest of targets while doing nothing to help with any real problems this country has. It was the BPA Ltd who warned us that there was a danger that the whole country could grind to a halt if the use of cctv cameras for parking contraventions was banned. Two months on and I haven't seen any evidence of this. Have you? <Swearyrant>). We can’t wait to see further details. (Bet you can't)

[1] Transport Select Committee (Twelfth Report, 2014)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the theme tune I think the BPA Ltd should include as part of its "MASTER PLAN". At least it would be closer to the truth than their Standard Operational Bullshit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HazQlWgdzg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HazQlWgdzg)
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 04 August, 2015, 03:48:46 PM
Fill yer boots.

-------------------------------------------------------


03 August 2015
Monday Musing: Clearing the Fog of Confusion over “regulation” and “funding”

Over the last few weeks we have had a few comments that show two topics continue to cause confusion among the public. One is how we enforce the BPA’s Code of Practice, the other is that we are calling for a standard setting body funded by the private parking sector and what this means.

Many have said that we have had years to regulate the private parking industry by the simple act of enforcing the Code of Practice, which is followed by the members of the Approved Operator Scheme, and that we have failed to do so; but is that really the case?

We do enforce our Code of Practice. A scheme of escalating and cumulative sanctions is in place which includes annual audit of all members and expulsion if necessary. If sanctions are issued following audits and/or investigations a Professional Conduct Panel hears evidence in which decisions are made to suspend or expel. Over recent years, seven companies have been expelled when serious breaches of the code have caused us to challenge the professionalism of the Operator.

The Code of Practice is enforced so far as the law allows us but without government legislation there cannot be proper regulation of the private parking sector.

The emergence of new Accredited Trade Associations has nothing to do with any failure on the part of the BPA but rather a failure on the part of Government to introduce proper regulation of the sector in a publicly accountable manner.

We believe and always have that to properly regulate the private parking sector a publicly accountable standard setting body must be set up that is accountable to government. We simply ask for one code of practice and one appeals service. It is confusing for motorists and businesses to continue with multiple codes of practice, multiple appeals services, and variable auditing and sanctions regimes. We propose that it is fully funded by the private parking profession so that there is a single, paid for, independent appeals service for motorists. To demonstrate that it to be fair to all we ask that the Body consists of consumer, motorist, operator & landowner representatives.

The Government already insists that POPLA, the first and largest independent appeals service, had to be funded by the private parking sector, and it is. So we are not saying anything new here. Motorists win 49% of appeals registered with POPLA. The alternative is motorists pay to access the appeals service, which we think would detract from appeals being registered.

We know that POPLA is providing motorists in England and Wales with an effective appeals service for parking tickets issued on private land, we believe in extending the service to Scotland and Northern Ireland. This requires both governments to agree to create an equivalent to the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4, which will introduce the concept of 'keeper liability' for vehicles parked on private land in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

All parking appeals services are free at the point of use, but they do need to be funded. It is common practice for appeals bodies to be funded by the business sectors they serve. But that is not the point. What is crucial is that decision making is independent and seen to be so. And with POPLA it is.

Keeping it free to motorists should encourage more to lodge an appeal where they feel unfair enforcement has taken place. Encouraging motorists to appeal at the issuer’s expense ensures redress as well as deterring improper PCN issuance, keeping motorists at the heart of our thinking.


http://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Blog/clearing-the-fog-of-confusion-over-regulation-and-funding (http://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Blog/clearing-the-fog-of-confusion-over-regulation-and-funding)
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: DastardlyDick on 04 August, 2015, 05:43:54 PM
If the BPA Ltd wish to clear the fog of confusion regarding the enforcemet of their Code of Practice, there is a simple solution - publish the results of their Proffessional Conduct Panel's hearings, showing the complaint, reasons why sanctions were applied/not applied, what the sanction was and the name of the PPC found guilty/not guilty and a 'league table' showing the cumulative total for each PPC.
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 04 August, 2015, 08:09:28 PM
"The Code of Practice is enforced so far as the law allows us"

What utter bollocks!

The law of the land has nothing to do with it. As far as the CoP is concerned the BPA Ltd IS the law and they can enforce it as much or as little as they want.

And they wonder why we don't trust them
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 04 August, 2015, 11:48:44 PM
Quote from: BPA Ltd spokesweasel
"………………..nothing to do with any failure on the part of the BPA (Ltd, how many more f :o cking times!) but rather a failure on the part of Government to introduce proper regulation…………."

So unless the government introduce proper regulation, there is going to be none at all. Glad we've cleared that up.
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 17 August, 2015, 01:54:14 PM
This whole article relies on the premise that parking should not be free, thus ensuring that the industry (yes that word they don't like) can sustain itself.

"The public often are the ones that drive demand and call for progress."

Too feckin' right we are! We want to return to the days when parking was provided as a service, NOT as a way to fill council coffers.

To coin one of Pat's favourite sayings, IT MAKES MY PISS BOIL when I see this kind of self serving propaganda.

And notice the way they talk about consulting with "stakeholders" but exclude the public (the biggest stakeholders of all) from such consultations.

Parking Mad?!?!?! Parking Furious would be more apt when I see them churning out this shite. <Tosser>

--------------------------------------------------------------

17 August 2015

Monday Musing: Can technology enhance the user experience?

Parking has a major influence on people’s travel decisions. The emergence of technology is playing a major role in the management of travel, traffic and parking, creating real change and starting to shape the future of how we deliver services to those who travel with new and innovative solutions.

The public often are the ones that drive demand and call for progress. Some are currently calling for Local Authorities to introduce free parking across the country to improve user experience. But does free really mean free?

We feel that other options should be carefully considered instead of just assuming that by providing free parking, councils can deliver a better service for the public and encourage more visits to town centres and high streets. Better recognition and awareness of the issues is needed and we will provide our members with the knowledge and information they require to be able to meet the changing needs of their customers. Technology is revolutionising the way people travel and the BPA wants to connect emerging technology to people's mobility aspirations through the development of new parking policy, as explored in our previous blog Time for Parking to Smarten Up.

Our Master Plan reflects our strategy to embrace technology and encourage innovation. We believe that through the optimisation of technologies to create a seamless experience, motorists will be happier and more mobile people.

At the beginning of this month we held a Future of Parking and Intelligent Mobility meeting with stakeholders kindly sponsored by Transport Systems Catapult, the innovation centre for intelligent mobility in Milton Keynes.

The day included a workshop exploring how technology can assist with the delivery of parking services, a technology showcase from those who are already providing innovative solutions and an overview of the Catapult and its work including current projects examining technologies and how they might affect transportation systems, we were provided with an inspiring look into apps that provide consumers with ways to search, locate, book and pay for parking as well as technology that assists those with mobility challenges to complete seamless end to end journeys.

Current models for delivering transport solutions appear to be unsustainable. Already we have seen local authorities such as Northamptonshire City Council benefiting from Government funding to create a social innovation model for integrated services between a range of local stakeholders including local authorities, NHS services and the University of Northampton. This collaborative way of working with the formation of new and innovative alliances appears to be the key, yielding thousands of pounds of savings and providing a new model for local delivery.

Collaboration is being cultivated to provide real-time parking information and space availability to motorists. One such example is a searchable parking database that covers millions of parking spaces in countries all over the world in many languages. The technology behind historical and future space prediction has the potential to resolve a lot of congestion problems and significantly reducing waiting time for motorists meaning happier motorists.

The BPA are keen to explore further opportunities. What other technologies are out there to improve the user experience?

Now we want to hear from those of you providing or assisting in the management of parking. Are you looking at new ideas for managing parking centred on new technology? Have you got a story of how technology has already brought about a better seamless customer experience? Be one of our guest bloggers and share your story with us. Consumers want convenient and low cost parking wherever they are so let’s start looking at how technology can enhance the user experience.
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: BGB on 17 August, 2015, 04:33:18 PM
Technology allows the operator to issue a fine/speculative invoice if the technology breaks down.

Technology allows the operator to issue a fine/speculative invoice if the user makes a mistake in inputting the required numbers and letters.

Technology allows the operator to issue a fine/speculative invoice to the user if they mishear a readback on a mobile 'phone in a busy street.

Technology allows the operator to issue a fine/speculative invoice of the user for an overstay if they enter a car park twice within the terms of use.

Technology allows the operator to issue a fine/speculative invoice if a motorist just drives past a car park.

Technology allows the operator to issue a fine/speculative invoice if two different vehicles visit the same facility.

Technology cannot allow the operator to decide if the user is disabled. 

Technology cannot allow the operator to monitor the use of disabled bays.

It seems that technology is being used for the benefit of those who like to issue fines and speculative invoices, rather than motorists who are parked within the rules.  Is it therefore any surprise that the BPA Ltd and its members are so keen on it?
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: DastardlyDick on 17 August, 2015, 08:05:24 PM
Wait until we're all forced to have RFID chips embedded in our number plates......
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 17 August, 2015, 09:22:26 PM
It seems that technology is being used for the benefit of those who like to issue fines and speculative invoices, rather than motorists who are parked within the rules.  Is it therefore any surprise that the BPA Ltd and its members are so keen on it?

 <Yeahthat>
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 17 August, 2015, 09:27:17 PM
Case in point.

--------------------------------

http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Mistake-costs-family-pound-100-parking-penalty/story-27594327-detail/story.html (http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Mistake-costs-family-pound-100-parking-penalty/story-27594327-detail/story.html)

Mistake costs family a £100 parking penalty

By West Briton  |  Posted: August 16, 2015

A FAMILY is in the grips of a parking dispute in Falmouth after being given a penalty of £100 for getting their registration plate wrong.

Kathy Fairey and her family parked a van in the pay and display car park on Avenue Road at the beginning of July.

She used the ticket machine to pay for the parking, but mistyped the registration plate on the machine.

Despite displaying the ticket, and leaving within the allotted time, they received a shock on their return from a holiday in France when they found an invoice requesting a penalty payment.

National Maritime Museum Cornwall owns the car park but its run by Premier Park Ltd.

Ms Fairey said: "It gave me the option of paying £60 if I paid within a certain date but I am objecting to paying this at all.

"In the first place, a £100 penalty charge is ridiculous and massively excessive. Even the £60 is incredible.

"I did pay for my parking on that day.

"If I had stayed too long I'd put my hands up and accept it.

"I cannot see that any judge would uphold such a charge and would like to see this invoice cancelled.

"I am sure we are not the only people who have been caught out by this and it is shameful, what an impression visitors must get of Cornwall, and especially Falmouth, if this happens.

"I, for one, will not be using this car park again. How can they do this when you have already paid for parking and left well within time?"

Cath Horton is the visitor services manager at the Maritime Museum.

She said: "In recent weeks, in response to our visitor's requests, we have switched to a new car parking system whereby a camera monitors all those using the car park facility and monitors the time spent in the car park against registration numbers.

"This new method alleviates the common concern of lost tickets or wrongly displayed tickets and has reduced the number of fines being issued.

"In addition, parking can now be paid for on return if someone has overstayed, or by phone or online, further reducing issues around lack of change or similar.

"If a wrong registration number is input or no payment is made at all, then the car park contractor, Premier Park Ltd, will issue a Parking Charge Notice."


Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 18 August, 2015, 10:31:35 AM
Case in point……………………...


This looks like a fun game. Can I play?    :-ev-:



Driver gets ticket after paying for parking using new mobile phone app (http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13586750.Driver_gets_ticket_after_paying_for_parking_using_new_mobile_phone_app/)

(http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/resources/images/4116394.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=mc3)
Driver gets ticket after paying for parking using new mobile phone app


A motorist who paid to park in Glasgow using a new online system was issued with a £30 penalty charge because a traffic warden was unable to make checks on a handheld device, it has been claimed.

A mobile phone application allows drivers to pay upfront instead of putting cash in meters and displaying a ticket.

But one motorist who used the system returned to his car in St Vincent Street to find a ticket.

Businessman Peter Samson said: “I paid via the app for two hours and half an hour before my parking period was due to expire a parking warden comes along and slaps a ticket on my car.

“When I returned to find the ticket I was confused and angry. I knew I’d paid for the parking and had both text and an email receipt.”

Mr Samson was told by council staff that he’d have to appeal the fine even though he had paid upfront but when the Evening Times contacted the council the ticket was cancelled.   <Surrender>

He said the customer service team later admitted there are problems with the new system in a phone call but Mr Samson insists they should have ironed out any issues before it was launched.

He said: “I went to the parking headquarters in John Street and was initially told that I was the first to have a problem like this.   <Pinnochio>

“However, when I spoke to a warden he revealed that I’m certainly not unique and that he’s aware of one driver who parks in Rose Street who’s had four tickets slapped on his vehicle when he’s used the app to cover his parking, and he said he was aware of many more unhappy drivers.”

Mr Samson was told that equipment issued to parking attendants doesn’t always allow them to go online.

He said: “The reason appears to be because of the signal not being strong enough to allow the wardens to check their machines - so if they can’t check, you just get a parking fine.   :o

“The warden said the council told them move one way for a few feet, then the other way, and see if that helps.

“You’d think the system would have been properly tested to save wardens the indignity of doing a ridiculous dance in the street so that they can get a signal – and to save drivers from going through a lengthy appeals process.”

A spokeswoman for Glasgow City Council said: “We are aware of some signalling problems affecting certain parts of the city centre.

“In these circumstances parking attendants have been advised to contact their base to allow a supervisor to check the validity of any vehicle which is parked on-street without a ticket before issuing a penalty charge notice.”  The parking industry is well known for ignoring good advice.


(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4918.0;attach=5389;image)
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 24 August, 2015, 01:30:28 PM
Always plenty of this stuff around,

'I paid a £4 parking fee by text and got a £350 fine' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/11775406/I-paid-a-4-parking-fee-by-text-and-got-a-350-fine.html)

Paying for parking by text is on the increase, but this driver was threatened by bailiffs when one message failed to get through

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03393/Natalie_Bynorth_3393464b.jpg)
Natalie Bynorth was not informed that her payment had failed, but the local authority refused to budge and sent debt collectors

A motorist let down by a pay-by-text parking ticket system was hounded for more than £350 after her £4.10 payment failed to go through.
Natalie Bynorth, a nurse, was left terrified by threats from bailiffs whose huge charges sent her original £25 fine spiralling to £362.   :o
“As someone who has never been in debt, the idea of bailiffs coming to my home was terrifying,” she said. “The whole experience was exhausting and incredibly stressful. I did nothing wrong, but nobody wanted to listen to reason.”
Ms Bynorth, 39, always pays for parking outside the hospital where she works by text. If the payments fail, she gets a text message from service operator MI Permit telling her to try again.
But when her £4.10 payment failed to go through on October 10 last year, no error message arrived.

Ms Bynorth, who lives in Cheltenham with her sons, Samuel, seven, and Sebastian, five, said: “Normally a failure can come through in one of two ways.
“The delivery of my text will fail, or I will receive a message from MI Permit informing me of the failure.
“On that day I received nothing – as far as I was aware it had gone through fine.”
However, Gloucestershire County Council refused her appeal against the resulting fine because a “valid ticket was not showing”.
When she contacted the council again to find out her next steps, she was told the matter had been sent to the courts because she had failed to make a formal appeal.
“I never received the ‘notice to owner’ form necessary to make a formal appeal, but I was told that nothing could be done  <Pinnochio> ,” Ms Bynorth said.

“Then I was contacted by the council’s debt collection agency, Newlyn, which threatened me with bailiffs if I did not pay the fine.”
She finally agreed to pay £157 at a rate of £10 a week “to make them go away”.
“Newlyn never sent me a payment plan,” Ms Bynorth said. “But I started paying anyway, making three monthly payments in total.
“Then, one day, I came home to a hand-delivered letter from bailiffs who visited to demand £362 because I had somehow broken my non-existent payment plan.”
Newlyn argued that it was “working under the instructions of our client Gloucestershire County Council”, which has now cancelled the fine and promised Ms Bynorth a full refund of the £75 she has paid so far.
Jim Daniels, parking manager at the council, said: “As we now have photos showing the parking date, we are able to cancel the fine.” (As our unreasonable behaviour has been featured in the press………..)
Title: Re: Comments on the BPA Ltd's Monday Musing. ALL contributions gratefully received
Post by: Overlord on 24 August, 2015, 02:55:00 PM
 <Swearyangry> <Swearyangry> <Swearyangry> Councils that act in this supercilious way need to be sued for damages, maybe then they will climb down from their high horses.