Barry Beavis tries to educate the BPA Ltd

[Ewan Hoosami]

The Bullshit Purveyors Association have been selling some of their snake oil again.

"Really Ewan? What a surprise."

I know it's hard to believe but bear with me. It's the usual old crap about how the BPA Ltd has done us all a massive favour and blah blah blah blah blah. Hum. Yawn. I've lost the will to describe their shit any further.

What sets this apart from the usual mind numbing rubbish is the fact that Barry Beavis has commented and managed to sum up exactly how epic the BPA Ltd's level of fail actually is. Enjoy,

A RESPONSE BY BARRY BEAVIS.

It is most odd that the BPA are calling for a single standard setting body to regulate parking on private land. The BPA is obliged to produce the Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice which was insisted upon by DVLA as a trade-off for PoFA 2012 and keeper liability. If the BPA had just enforced this CoP everything would have been fine. As an example, the CoP in force at the time I received my PCN stated all charges (made by the PPC) have to be a GPEoL.

The CoP states that compliance with the code should be part of the culture of the organisation.

The Code describes the objectives of these systems and procedures, and the standards of conduct and practice within which AOS members should work. It also says that that as a member of the AOS the PPC must maintain a professional standard of behaviour in carrying out your operational duties and members of the public should be able to expect that you will keep to the law, and act in a professional, reasonable and diligent way. And a lot of other things.

The BPA's Code of Practice is a good framework for the private parking industry.

The failure of the BPA to enforce to Code of Practice is where the biggest problem sits. Has the BPA ensured all charges were a GPEoL or that all members of the BPA acted in a professional and reasonable way, as well as the rest of the Code, all would be well in the private parking sector.

There was one single standard setting body and it was the BPA.

The BPA did not lead the way in delivering redress for the consumer, as it claimed above. But by continually failing to adhere to it's own standards required in it's own CoP has required this consumer to have seek redress in the Supreme Court.

It's all very well for Patrick Troy to now call upon the Government to do the right thing for the motorist and the parking sector but I see this as an admittance of the BPA's own failings.

After all, had the BPA and Patrick Troy really wanted to, they could have forced the parking industry to comply with the Code of Practice. If this had happened and compliance was enforced, then there would have been one single standard setting body regulating the private parking sector.

How ironic.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/alignment-in-parking-after-all

Was that the bollocks, or what?

                       

   

[scalyback]

Always knew the BPA were lazy. They just want somebody else to do their job for them.

I mean... How could you run the whole parking industry from that crabby little office in part of a building in Haywards Heath? Its only big enough to sit all day, filing nails, doing lipstick, pulling out black heads and all though other thing they seem to do so well. Oh and hoping that somebody else will actually regulate the industry, while they order a few buns for tea.

If they trouser that much money, they could at least pretend to be doing something towards it, other than looking like complete jerks and liars during interviews.

[DastardlyDick]

It's not so much that the BPA are lazy, it's just that the way they are set up is totally biased towards the PPCs. Membership fees are (I believe) based on turnover/profit - the more you earn the higher your membership fee - which of course was fine (for them) when they were the only 'regulator' in existance and you had to be a member to get ownership details from DVLA. Then the IPC came along, an unholy alliance between a bunch of ex-clampers and a firm of solicitors. They are cheaper to join than the BPA and (allegedly) run a 'kangaroo court' appeal system called the IAS, where, (allegedly) the assesors are hand picked by the directors to guarantee a 'win' for the PPC. Now, the boot is definitly on the other foot, if the BPA give out too many "sanction points" to their members they can simply go "f*** you, I'm off to the IPC to get my keeper details". The BPA cannot afford to do this, not with PoPLA (allegedly) heamoraging money, having to keep Trouser Fire in asbestos chino's and Dr Bellend in...err, yes, whatever they have to keep her in!
While I have no sympathy for the upper echelons of the BPA, I do not want to see the day when the IPC are the sole 'regulator', or even more money is taken from the pockets of hard pressed motorists/council tax payers to provide one.

Good Luck to Mr Beavis, and hopefully the Supreme Court will deliver the correct verdict.

[The Bald Eagle]

Barry makes excellent points but fails to identify what I believe is the real motivation for the BPA Ltd's (don't forget the Ltd) call for regulation.

Despite the fact that the so called "regulation" service provided by the BPA Ltd (don't forget the Ltd) regularly provides only lip service to the complaining motorist, it still costs them shedloads of money to run it.

However, if they can get the government to regulate on their behalf, guess who gets to pay for the privilege?