Author Topic: Camden council's BPA Ltd revenue raising model contract with ticket targets  (Read 4318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
See page 1 for confirmation that this is a BPA Ltd model contract.

http://notomob.co.uk/documents/Camden/CamdenContract.pdf

Offline dangerous beanz

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 161
3.2.13.5 "Digital cameras WILL be tested at the commencement of each shift......."
I wonder how they record the evidence that they complete these tests?
If there is a tourist season...how come we can't shoot them?

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Anyone remember this exchange in Parliament last year when Patrick Troy was invited to give evidence to the Transport Select Committee?

Q10 Karen Lumley: We have these traffic people in our town, but there is a perception in our town that they are incentivised to book people. Is that the case? Are they allowed to do that?

Patrick Troy: No; that is unlawful. If any local authority were doing that, they would be breaking the law. It is as simple as that. They have very clear responsibilities when it comes to parking enforcement in relation to their powers. They are to carry out parking enforcement solely for the purpose of managing congestion and issues akin to that, such as improving road safety, encouraging more sustainable forms of transport and so on. There is no power to issue penalty charge notices for the purposes of raising revenue, and that does not happen.

At the BPA, to try to ensure that that message is got across, we have developed a model contract. Most local authorities outsource their enforcement. Of course, another misunderstanding is that the private sector is then incentivised to issue as many tickets as possible to boost their profit line. In fact, the service providers don’t benefit from the penalty charge notices that are issued; it is the local authority that receives the income. Our model contract makes clear that the responsibility of the service provider is to deliver a service in accordance with some KPIs, none of which relate to the generation of revenue or the issue of tickets.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/118/130610.htm

Now fast forward to Mr Troy's appearance on Sky News immediately after the Transport Select Committee published its recommendations, where he admitted that some LAs (Camden?) are "letting the side down".

What a pity Mr Troy didn't take a copy of Camden's BPA model contract to Parliament with him. You know the one I mean. It's the one with the illegal ticket targets in it that is currently under investigation by government lawyers and Camden Council's District Auditors.

And bear in mind that Camden Council is a fully paid up member of the BPA Ltd who, like many other LAs in England and Wales (and soon to be Scotland) use public money to pay for the BPA Ltd's services, one of which is the model contract.

Also remember that the BPA Ltd is a private company which receives hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money each year, although just how much we don't know because it is a private company that cannot be held to account by the public even though it advises LAs in meetings that are held behind closed doors, in secret, where plans are drawn up on how best to turn motorists into cash cows.

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2224
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
The man with the highly combustible trousers thinks it's all a big misunderstanding,

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/scottish-conservatives-just-scaremongering-?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Scottish Conservative transport spokesman, Alex Johnstone MSP has declared that the move from police wardens to private parking operators in Scotland would provide a gravy train of profits for the private operator.

“This is just scaremongering ”, says Patrick Troy, Chief Executive of The British Parking Association (BPA).

He added: “Scottish local authorities taking on parking enforcement powers do so to tackle congestion and improve safety on our roads. Parking enforcement powers cannot by law be used to generate revenue.”

Traffic Law stipulates that surpluses generated above and beyond the cost of enforcement must be used for transport-related items and cannot be used more generally by the local authority, clearly refuting the idea that any “profit” can be made.

“It would be unlawful for local authorities to set ticket targets for their Parking Attendants. If they use private firms the firms will not be incentivised by the issue of tickets but by other performance requirements like numbers of visits to locations” continues Patrick, “although the shift from Police enforcement to local authority enforcement could have been planned better by the government, actually motorists in receipt of local authority tickets have a more user-friendly means of redress if they think the ticket is unfair.” (At this point, the smileys completely lost control of their bowels)  :rotfl:  :rotfl:  :rotfl:  :rotfl:  :rotfl:  :rotfl:  :rotfl:  :rotfl:

Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
I don't like to criticise someone for not doing something that I wouldn't have the slightest clue how to do in the first place Ewan :schucks:, but I do think you missed a trick here by not highlighting the last sentence as well.

It's the one that says "PCN issue rates per deployed hour must be achieved or exceeded to have met this KPI"

That sentence explains why we have copies of invoices marked "bonus income" and why the government and district auditors are taking this so seriously.
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2224
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
You criticise away my friend. A missed point is always worth pointing out. I also know where you can source cleaning products that are excellent for removing highlighter ink from LCD displays.  :rotfl:

Knowing how some of our readers like to, ahem, 'set the record straight,' the BPA ltd try their best to ensure that service providers are not incentivised to issue a certain amount of PCNs per hour by ensuring that the said service providers are contractually obliged to issue a certain amount of PCNs per hour. This effectively removes any incentives. There's another misunderstanding cleared up for you.
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1694

Knowing how some of our readers like to, ahem, 'set the record straight,' the BPA ltd try their best to ensure that service providers are not incentivised to issue a certain amount of PCNs per hour by ensuring that the said service providers are contractually obliged to issue a certain amount of PCNs per hour. This effectively removes any incentives. There's another misunderstanding cleared up for you.

And when translated into English?

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2224
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
O.K. so that was a little surreal, even by my standards. Generally all BPA propaganda is liberally peppered with some familiar stock phrases like "Setting the record straight" "Local authorities use their enforcement powers to manage congestion and it would be unlawful for them to use incentives to issue PCNs" "We need to challenge the misunderstanding/misconception that parking enforcement is used to generate revenue."

Historically, there was the element of plausible deniability in that the BPA supposedly had no knowledge of how their members were twisting, bending and breaking the rules. It has transpired that the $camden contract is a BPA model contract. Not only did the BPA have full knowledge of PCN ticket targets, but they were complicit in engineering those targets in the first place. Effectively, they ensured that NSL were contractually obliged to exceed a set number of PCNs per specified time period.

Another element that is noteworthy is the fact that LAs and subcontractors are BPA members and the membership fees are directly related to turnover,

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Aug_13_update_-_BPA_fees_sheet_2013_-_formatted_in_new_style.pdf

It is very much in the BPAs interest that their members issue more rather than less PCNs since they are creaming a handsome cut straight off the top.

Or in it's more basic form:

The BPA Ltd are lying weasels!
« Last Edit: 23 February, 2014, 09:34:29 AM by Ewan Hoosami »
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1694
Thank you for the clarification Ewan - the bit in orange was good enough for me  :D

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
I agree, although I think it's worth repeating together with a reminder of what dear old PaTrickus told Parliament.

"There is no power to issue penalty charge notices for the purposes of raising revenue, and that does not happen.

At the BPA, to try to ensure that that message is got across, we have developed a model contract."
[/i]

The BPA Ltd are lying weasels!


« Last Edit: 23 February, 2014, 11:30:10 AM by The Bald Eagle »
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Camden council's BPA Ltd revenue raising model contract with ticket targets
« Reply #10 on: 23 February, 2014, 11:35:11 AM »
Whoops! I forgot this bit.

Our model contract makes clear that the responsibility of the service provider is to deliver a service in accordance with some KPIs, none of which relate to the generation of revenue or the issue of tickets.[/i][/size][/b]
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player