Author Topic: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators  (Read 6950 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« on: 28 November, 2014, 07:12:00 PM »
The BPA Ltd like to pretend that they strictly enforce their faux AOS Code Of Practice. The cat was out of the bag a long time ago however that BPA Ltd members can do whatever they like without fear of being suspended. Non payment of AOS fees will earn a suspension but everything else is fair game. But how far will the BPA Ltd allow one of their errant members to go before wagging their finger disapprovingly? Let’s put a typical ‘investigation’ under the spotlight and have a look.

Way back in June a motorist parked in a private car park with the landowner’s permission, clearly displaying a permit supplied by the landowner. Along came a spider BPA Ltd weasel, who didn’t have the landowner’s permission to be in the car park, and issued a sPeCulative iNvoice. Instead of paying up like a good little victim, the motorist decided to get her appeal automatically rejected by the weasel only for POPLA to eventually clear her of any wrongdoing. For good measure she decided to submit a complaint to the BPA Ltd at the start of the appeals process. We may now begin.

Verbatim replies from the BPA Ltd are "quoted", in italics and tinted BPA Ltd regulation bullshit colour.

The complaint to the BPA centred around  Park Direct UK Ltd operating on land without the landowner’s permission. The BPA Ltd describe this as ‘very serious’ and the type of complaint they take ‘very seriously’ whenever they are commenting to the press over parking issues. The evidence sent in by the motorist included some of the following,

  • Park Direct UK Ltd’s faux contract which shows they they have an arrangement to ticket a nearby car park owned by a different company.
  • Google streetview images showing where Park Direct are supposed to operate and more importantly, must not operate. (these are the operator’s own documents sent into POPLA as ‘evidence’)
  • A photo taken by the parking weasel showing the motorist’s car in the car park marked DO NOT TICKET. Note time as being late at night so as to catch legitimate users.
  • A letter and email from the landowner detailing how the landowner has repeatedly told the operator to cease and desist but they have continued ticketing anyway. The email shows they were told to stop just three weeks before this final round of rogue ticketing.

The first reply back from the BPA Ltd asked the motorist to “please confirm the full name of the operator, this will prevent any confusion between the operators similarly named.” The motorist had referred to the operator simply as Park Direct in the initial complaint. There were no similarly named AOS members but the motorist diligently replied with the full name of the operator along with their address, website and where the BPA Ltd could find the listing on their own list of AOS members.
 <Flogging>
The BPA Ltd’s next reply was most illuminating. “We can confirm Park Direct UK Limited are a member of the BPA and part of the Approved Operators Scheme (AOS).” That’s it, just a confirmation of what was already known.
 <Flogging>
After a month had gone by the motorist’s inbox was feeling decidedly unloved so she again contacted the BPA Ltd to ask if the AOS investigations team were likely to carry out any investigations. Their reply was simply astonishing, “We do not have the authority to intervene in the appeals process and as advised do not investigate cases being heard by POPLA.
If during the appeals process POPLA find there has been a breach of the BPA Code of Practice, we will be advised and apply our internal processes to the breach.”
The motorist was not at all happy so fired off another email highlighting a page on the BPA Ltd’s own website containing the exact phrase,"………….addressing compliance issues that have arisen from complaints made by members of the public." She asked directly whether or not members of the public were welcome to complain to the BPA Ltd. The BPA Ltd then realised that only a professionally crafted fob-off would suffice for this case so set about crafting one. “We have given your case reference BPA-05246  and ask that you quote this on any future correspondence. 
We have contacted the operator concerned regarding the issue you have raised and once we have received a response to our request we will be in contact with our findings.”
That’s right. Amazing, isn’t it? They had the contact details of the landowner to verify that their operator was in fact operating on land without the landowner’s permission but thought the best course of action would be to contact the operator and ask them if they had breached the Code Of Practice.
 <Flogging>
Another five weeks went by with nothing further so it was time to gee them up to find out what was happening. The BPA Ltd may have simply forgotten to fob the motorist off in a timely fashion but later the same day they had managed to remember being contacted by the operator so replied, "The operator has confirmed that they do not hold a contract with Asra as you stated previously but do have a contract with another company to operator[sic] on a defined area covering certain flats. 
The area that they manage for their client is monitored by issuing them with permits and any Asra residents are not permitted to park there and therefore will receive a parking charge notice.”
Whilst this was very interesting and educational the motorist had not parked in the other company’s car park and resented the implication.
 <Flogging>
The motorist then replied that the issue was unresolved and described in great detail the exact layout of the area complete with satellite view links along with all the relevant documentation again demonstrating conclusively how the operator had deliberately operated on land it not only had no authorisation to operate on but was told repeatedly to stop. Another month went by without reply so the BPA Ltd were pinged again. They were kind enough to reply this time, “We have contacted the operator again regarding this issue as they did respond stating that they were investigating further but have not as yet received an update.” That’s it, contacted the operator again and asked them if they were absolutely certain they had not breached the Code Of Practice and could they investigate themselves if they were not too busy invading car parks.
 <Flogging>
The motorist, now experienced in waiting for the BPA Ltd, contacted them a week later to see if Park Direct UK Ltd had finished investigating themselves. The BPA Ltd thought they’d try the new tactic of ignore her and she’ll probably go away. The motorist has a strange fetish where she enjoys being lied to so emailed them again another week later wondering why her last email was not even replied to. Most of the BPA Ltd’s bullshit reserves had been depleted by various Monday Musings so they were forced to call in professional fob-off artist Peter WBeasley for a top class fob-off, "I have been asked by my colleague to review this case.
The question being whether Park Direct UK, had a contract and the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) in Glover Close, Abbey Wood. I note that the PCN issued to you was dated 2nd April 2014. 
I have looked at the original contract that PARK Direct had with their client ‘Housing for Women’. The areas covered include Glover House, Abbey wood Road, SE2 9DX.
This kind of issue has come up on a few occasions, where the parking operator has on good faith accepted the landowners (or agents) word that the land that they are requested to operate on, is indeed owned by them. 
Park Direct have gone back to the landowner to seek clarification, and are still awaiting the land registry documentation. They have however received confirmation from their client that Glover Close, is not part of the ‘Housing for Women’ land. 
The information originally provided by a manager of the above association, who is no longer there. 
They have informed us that no further tickets will be issued.
In conclusion this is not a breach of our code of practise,
[sic] as the site and its boundaries were taken on in good faith with the  ‘Housing for Women’ association. 
We will be closing off this case.”

 <Flogging>  <Flogging>  <Flogging>  <Flogging>  <Flogging>

Impressive, huh? No mention of what the landowner had to say. Nor even anything resembling an apology for all the months of having to deal with an unlawfully issued invoice. If anyone wants to save the time and hassle of dealing with the lackadaisical BPA Ltd, they could complain directly to the operator. Tell the operator that if they find that they have behaved inappropriately they can then issue themselves some sanction points and refrain from accessing the DVLA database for a week as a form of penance. This will yield an equal chance of the operator being suspended while cutting the biblically useless BPA Ltd out of the equation.

In the interests of accuracy it is not known if the BPA Ltd even contacted the operator at all. We simply have their word for it. Apart from the last fob-off from Peter WBeasley the replies all seemed to be of a generic nature. An example of which is, “We are unable to give details of the contract as this information is not on[sic] the public domain.” This may have been selected from a drop-down box as the motorist had sent the BPA Ltd a copy of the contract with the original complaint.

Among the attachments is the ‘typical BPA spin’ that appears in news articles on parking. If this case is an example of  taking a complaint very seriously, then not giving a flying fuck cases must take centuries to complete. Another attachment, BPA Trolling, was their tweets following the portrayal of the BPA Ltd and the private parking industry on BBC Watchdog earlier in the year. They spammed and taunted both BBC Watchdog and the NoToMob for a whole week pretending that they regulate their members. I’m not sure they can deal with 100s of complaints. Just one clear cut case with all the relevant evidence proved far too taxing.

If anyone at the BPA Ltd objects to this topic, rest assured the site admins will take your complaint 'very seriously' and conduct a thorough investigation.  :-ev-:
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 Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #1 on: 28 November, 2014, 08:38:50 PM »
Rest assured, we admins will take any complaint from the BPA Ltd as seriously as they treat complaints to themselves.

Offline scalyback

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 316
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #2 on: 28 November, 2014, 10:08:46 PM »
Can't somebody get the DVLA to stop selling keeper information, and get these parking weasels put out on the streets. I hate thieves and rip off merchants.

What is up with the DVLA? they sell our information to anybody that is a member of an ATA, and I bet I could get approval for the monkeys at London zoo to become members.  They seem to have the power to fine us for something that is not their concern. They don't sell insurance, they don't give backup in case your insurance won't pay out, and they are a driver and vehicle licensing agency, and have nothing whatsoever to do with insurance, but have been given the power to fine us if we fall foul of 'their' rules. They now gain themselves an extra months vehicle duty every time a vehicle is sold.. I mean, ruddy hell, they are just as much rip off agents as the rest, except for the fact that some twats gave them the 'authority'.

well, I have nothing to do with the sale of hot water bottles, but I intend to fine everybody who does not go out and buy a new one within 14 days! So there!!!

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #3 on: 28 November, 2014, 10:43:52 PM »
Can't somebody get the DVLA to stop selling keeper information………………..


It's a nice idea but the DVLA are drinking from the same trough as all the other little piggies,

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/dvla-cough-up-75-on-orders-of-ica.html

Also the DVLA and the BPA Ltd have appeared on BBC Watchdog so often that their respective spokesweasels are entitled to a BBC pension,

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: 4373
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #4 on: 29 November, 2014, 08:48:38 AM »
That's the first time I have seen that Watchdog clip. It's also the first time I found myself agreeing with Mr Trouser Fire Troy.

He wants government to step in and "regulate the sector in a much more robust way", and so do I.

 <baldeagleplotting>

Makes one wonder if Patrickus may be getting more than he wished for when you see things like this appearing on the Bullshit Purveyor's website.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/bis-opens-online-consultation-to-test-guidance-on-consumer-rights-bill?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 <baldeagleplotting>
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4373
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #5 on: 29 November, 2014, 10:27:15 AM »
Just had a quick look through this bill and found one or two things that are almost certainly troubling Trouser Fire and his cronies. I have picked out some terms that will undoubtedly give the industry some trouble. 20 (a) and (c) are my favourites as they will (in my humble opinion) kill off POPLA and IPC, and 19 is another doozie. ;)

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

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0052/lbill_2014-20150052_en_5.htm#pt2-pb2-l1g63

63 Contract terms which may or must be regarded as unfair

(1) Part 1 of Schedule 2 contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms of
consumer contracts that may be regarded as unfair for the purposes of this
Part.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0052/lbill_2014-20150052_en_7.htm#sch2-pt1

SCHEDULE 2

Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair

Part 1 List of terms

3. A term which has the object or effect of making an agreement binding on the consumer in a case where the provision of services by the trader is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader’s will alone.

6. A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

19. A term which has the object or effect of allowing the trader to transfer the trader’s rights and obligations under the contract, where this may reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the consumer’s agreement.

20 A term which has the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, in particular by—

(a) requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions [i.e. POPLA][/b][/size],

(b) unduly restricting the evidence available to the consumer, or

(c) imposing on the consumer a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Bazster

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #6 on: 29 November, 2014, 11:27:33 AM »
The complainer needs to take this further.

I am currently in the "being ignored" phase of a complaint to BPA.  I've asked DVLA to look into it since BPA is ignoring me, and now DVLA is also ignoring me.  The more diligently they ignore me the more convinced I am that what might've been an administrative error is actually something much more serious.  Next week it is going to turn into a formal complaint to DVLA (which will be escalated to my MP and the Parliamentary Ombudsman if necessary), an FOI to DVLA for everything they have relating to my complaint (which hopefully will elicit some interesting email exchanges with BPA), and a formal compliant to the ICO.

The complaint described in the first post needs to be taken though a similar route.

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #7 on: 29 November, 2014, 12:38:20 PM »
The weasels are certainly sweating BE. From their web page you highlighted,

"The BPA is particularly interested in the Consumer Rights Bill on Unfair Terms……………."

I'll bet they feckin' well are.

Bazster, an interesting facet to the original story not yet touched upon regards Park Direct UK Ltd's, ahem, contract. This, ahem, contract,



Now part of Peter Weasley's (sorry about that, I think it's Beasley but my keyboard keeps swapping Bs and Ws) reply to the motorist was, "I have looked at the original contract that PARK Direct had with their client ‘Housing for Women’." Wee willy Weasley signed himself off as 'Compliance Manager'. Now being a compliance manager I would assume he must probably be familiar with the AOS Code Of Practice. That's the document containing this,

7 Written authorisation of the landowner

7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question.The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for.

In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.

7.2. The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
f. whether or not the landowner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges due from drivers charged for unauthorised parking.

Being a compliance manager I shouldn't think he'd need the blatantly obvious pointing out to him. He would probably be able to spot it himself, what with him being the compliance manager and all. Still, I'll let Peter explain things to you himself, "In conclusion this is not a breach of our code of practise[sic]…………."

The BPA Ltd really are a wunch of bankers. (poxy keyboard)
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 Kill Switch

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #8 on: 18 February, 2015, 11:36:53 AM »
The complainer needs to take this further.

I am currently in the "being ignored" phase of a complaint to BPA.  I've asked DVLA to look into it since BPA is ignoring me, and now DVLA is also ignoring me.  The more diligently they ignore me the more convinced I am that what might've been an administrative error is actually something much more serious.  Next week it is going to turn into a formal complaint to DVLA (which will be escalated to my MP and the Parliamentary Ombudsman if necessary), an FOI to DVLA for everything they have relating to my complaint (which hopefully will elicit some interesting email exchanges with BPA), and a formal compliant to the ICO.

The complaint described in the first post needs to be taken though a similar route.

Do you have any update on this?
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice


Offline Bazster

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #9 on: 19 February, 2015, 08:19:38 AM »
The complainer needs to take this further.

I am currently in the "being ignored" phase of a complaint to BPA.  I've asked DVLA to look into it since BPA is ignoring me, and now DVLA is also ignoring me.  The more diligently they ignore me the more convinced I am that what might've been an administrative error is actually something much more serious.  Next week it is going to turn into a formal complaint to DVLA (which will be escalated to my MP and the Parliamentary Ombudsman if necessary), an FOI to DVLA for everything they have relating to my complaint (which hopefully will elicit some interesting email exchanges with BPA), and a formal compliant to the ICO.

The complaint described in the first post needs to be taken though a similar route.

Do you have any update on this?

It's ongoing.  Reached the ICO now who are lying to me and claiming (untruthfully) that they have no power to investigate.  ICO, DVLA, BPA, they are all in it together.

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #10 on: 19 February, 2015, 10:47:37 AM »
I saw that nice Patrick Trouser-Fire on the telly the other night. He said show him the evidence and he will investigate.

                                  
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 Bazster

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: BPA Ltd fail to control their operators
« Reply #11 on: 19 February, 2015, 11:39:12 AM »
I saw that nice Patrick Trouser-Fire on the telly the other night. He said show him the evidence and he will investigate.

                                  


I saw that too.  Mrs. Baz was very disapproving when I yelled at our TV.  "You lying sack of s**t" might've been my utterance.

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player