Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Unrest in the Parking industry
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Pages: 1, 2
ppc_guy
Well guys some of you may know me form on here and MSE.

Just come over to report some unrest in the private parking industry. As you know I manage a private parking company.

Over the last few days there has been a large deal of unrest coming from some of the smaller companies in the industry over the way they are treated by the BPA and and the way in which this treatment differs from how the big boys are treated,

You may or may not be aware of an email from a person at the BPA named Kelvin which is of the following content:
QUOTE
"Dear AOS Colleague

It has been drawn to our attention that there is much public concern about some operators who continue to indicate on signage, parking charge notices and similar correspondence that the keeper is liable for the payment of parking charges due as a result of a breach of contract. This is not the legal situation now nor will it be after 1 October 2012.

DVLA has told us that two AOS members have recently been suspended by them for 3 months for doing this. Others may be at risk of an immediate suspension by DVLA.

As a matter of urgency, and to protect the reputation of the Accredited Trade Association and, ultimately, your business, I am instigating a thorough audit of these elements for all AOS members with immediate effect.

Please will you confirm and provide evidence that your current signage, parking charge notices, notices to owner, or correspondence with the keeper, in no way suggests that the keeper is liable for payment. Please submit your evidence by e-mail to Alpha Parking, the organisation that we have appointed to carry out this project for us at the following address: aos@aparking.co.uk

To assist you with transition arrangements and as a service to members Alpha Parking will also check these aspects in your proposed signage, parking charge notices, notices to driver and keeper, or other correspondence with the keeper is compliant with Code 2012 and the Protection of Freedoms Act requirements. Please send this information also to the above email address.

Alpha Parking will be undertaking this audit urgently, and in commercial confidence, reporting their findings to us in the next two weeks and so your evidence should be submitted by return please and certainly no later than Friday 28th September. Failure to do so will result in sanction points being awarded against you in accordance with the Scheme of Sanctions.

I appreciate that this is a busy time for everyone in the private parking sector but I cannot overemphasise how important it is that you assist us with this special audit. If the situation is as prevalent as has been suggested to us it is a serious matter for the credibility of the AOS itself and this is clearly a situation which everyone needs to avoid. We need to ensure that compliance and auditing is robust. You are required to do this now regardless of any recent audit by NSI and whether information held within our systems has been recently supplied.

This information and request is also being sent in letter form by Royal Mail.

I look forward to your cooperation and thank you in advance."


As we can see from this email the BPA are directly accusing the operators of not complying with the DVLA'S guidelines.

I must mention that following a previous memo from the DVLA to the BPA they were instructed to forward a message to ALL BPA members that keeper liability must not be implied on any signage or document until such legislation has been brought into action. This email was never received by myself and several other operators that i am directly aware of.

The above email is in direct response to the DVLA announcing they are reviewing the BPA's conduct.

In Case you are not aware ALL BPA members are supposed to be audited every year. This audit covers everything from contracts with landowners to signage and complaints.
I am aware of 1 member who has now been suspended from DVLA access by the DVLA (NOT CPS) who was auditied just weeks prior to being suspended for implying keeper liability on the signs.

The DVLA guidelines (which im sure would also fall under DPA) state that any initial communication with the registered keeper must make no mention of any charge, offence of amounts but is merely to ascertain the identity of the driver (currently by request not requirement) at the time.

This means that ALL notices from the larger ANPR operators are in breach of this guideline as they directly are addressed to the registered keepr and mention all the details of any alleged offence. The BPA are aware of this but still it is allowed.

The BPA in their email above have now shifted any blame from them to the operators in their menacing email and also given us 7 days to respond. A call to the DVLA has today confirmed that they are seeking professional advice on the new code and as such the BPA are acting out of turn in this measure as they are enforcing rules and regulations "on behalf of the DVLA" which haven't even been released by the DVAL.

This may be a real chance to effect the parking industry in a way which may only make things better.

As you can see this is a sincere message and i would rather not have any replies with no purpose or content.
Basfordlad
Thank you PPC Guy

That is a most illuminating piece of information and it is appreciated !

Do you see any companies leaving BPA AOS because of the problems and just ticketing like ex clampers?
ppc_guy
Basford,

the issue is that of lack of competition. Leave the BPA and at current your out on your a$$. There is no option or alterante. BPA or nothing and as we know for some nothing isnt an option.
bama
thats an awful lot of things to be audited in two weeks. to audit you actually have look at the stuff.
how many PPCs, how many signs ?
I think this will be something else from the BPA that may prove to be 'numerically challenged'

ppc_guy
Bama,

They actually give us 7 days (IIRC)

They haven't said how long they are going to take to do the audit but they gave us the timeline to respond by.
bama
yup, "findings in two weeks" to the BPA - depending on what they mean by "us" could also mean all the members as email is address to a Colleague. (I would argue that it does mean to all members.)

And the key date is Oct 1st..

there seems to be an element of
horse plus stable door
ppc_guy
Bama,

Shows how well i read the email wink.gif

The emails from the BPA are nearly always addressed to colleague in an effort to portray working together with parking operators although very few operators feel this way.

Hotel Oscar 87
QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 15:59) *
And the key date is Oct 1st..

there seems to be an element of
horse plus stable door

Beggars belief. And the BPA's avowed purpose is to professionalise things? One gets the impression that there is only more to come.

I think the stable door may be stuck on what our Teutonic friends would describe as pferd apfel

Thank you ppc_guy
ppc_guy
Indeed more is to come.

Other organisations are looking to become ATA's but DVLA "CURRENTLY" requires 6 months trading before becoming accredited. They have however confirmed this may be amended (to instant upon DVLA audit) if the current ATA is found to be underperforming, or acting negligently (Word from another and cannot be vouched for but seems viable)

And as a side http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=73201 shows an example of a PCN from P.E just 2 days ago. This NTO clearly shows keeper liability as it is addressed to the keeper and says this amount must be paid immediately.
Quicksilver
So when was the original email sent out?

Looks like there is panic in the streets!

Q.
Basfordlad
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 16:04) *
Bama,

Shows how well i read the email wink.gif

The emails from the BPA are nearly always addressed to colleague in an effort to portray working together with parking operators although very few operators feel this way.



What is the general opinion amongst your colleagues in the parking industry of the POFA/Popla etc?
ppc_guy
Pofa and the clamping ban was inevitable due to too many sour grapes in the trade

Popla is perceived very very poorly. Either accept the company based appeal or pay32 quid
bama
What do they (you) think they will get for the thirty odd sponds
ppc_guy
A bill. The industry is messed up from the inside right now. We achieve nothing from the appeal. It is estimated 27k appeals per annum are needed just to fund popla
prosnap
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 19:11) *
The industry is messed up from the inside right now.




Now? ...


Your industry has been unregulated for far too long, making the criminal element within think they could get away with anything they wanted.


No tears coming from over here ....
Broadsword
It took balls to come on here and post what he did - gets my thanks (and respect) for doing so
uk_mike
I am struggling to see why an audit of signage would cause any concern, after all as reputable businesses the signs will all be up to minimum adequate standards.


Oh wait.........


Well all I can say is you reap what you sow. It's just a pity it as taken the DVLA so long to put integrity before money.
Basfordlad
QUOTE (Broadsword @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 19:53) *
It took balls to come on here and post what he did - gets my thanks (and respect) for doing so


That makes 2 of us! Shame the others are not so open and honest
southpaw82
I too am glad about him coming here. Too often PPCs come here to troll, gloat or spy. To be fair, they often get a rough ride, often deservedly. That's not something I want to see happen on this thread.

It would be possible for the industry to operate wholly lawfully and I'm sure a lot of members here could suggest how. It's a shame that certain elements in PPC land have developed an antagonistic approach, which simply leads to practices such as clamping being banned; something of an own goal.
ppc_guy
Well I'm not here for tears. I unlike some on the dark side want the industry to be run in a much more ethical manner.

The audit in itself causes no concern. The cause is the issue. The bpa are now being reviewed and shifted any blame from them to the operators who already get audited yearly.

In the coming weeks a new ata may be formed and it would be nice to have CONSTRUCTIVE input from you guys.

As for the efforts at digs I'm made of thicker skin to heed them.
prosnap
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 20:16) *
As for the efforts at digs I'm made of thicker skin to heed them.


Being in your industry, it's hardly any surprise.


If you are not already on the "dark side," why not reveal who you work for? Working for one of the more ethical companies can only benefit you on here.




uk_mike
It is an unfortunate reality that a industry with a bad reputation will smear even those who try to do things right.

The BPA are to an extent paying the price of having failed to get its industry in order, as are the members who are responsibl for it failure. I recognise that this I galling for anyone who did want to see things improve but who were drowned out by other more dominant sectors of the membership.

My fear is that the bigger boys may be able to use their size to minimise the pain that is coming the industries way, and I recognise this will be galling. Many businesses have failed due to larger more dominant competors who seek to manipulate things to place barriers for anyone else to enter.

However there is a significant hardening of attitudes against the industry - hence why the DVLA is acting as they are,a nd if te big boys think they will be able to use this to their advantage they may get a very nasty shock.

I too would like to see a more professional and ethical parking industry, but I fear the BPA are not the ones to bring it about. But I don't see how it could happen. I am doubtful that reasonable charges only levied as a last resort could fund enforcement costs meaning landowners would have to foot the bill. But I suspect that a charged service would only appeal to the most irate or badly affected car park owners - leaving a much smaller industry.
ppc_guy
Pro.... Revealing my Id at this point could be detrimental to my position in the company.



Also moving to charge landowners and scrapping any financial incentives to the land owner is already in position.

The bigger they are the hardest they fall and parking is no different.

I'm not here for any rows. Some people know who I am and can verify me.
Basfordlad
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 21:01) *
Pro.... Revealing my Id at this point could be detrimental to my position in the company.



Also moving to charge landowners and scrapping any financial incentives to the land owner is already in position.

The bigger they are the hardest they fall and parking is no different.

I'm not here for any rows. Some people know who I am and can verify me.


I dont see the need for him to reveal who he is

Its obvious hes giving some genuinely useful information on this thread, ok maybe he doesnt always help in all threads but in this one he is, so i dont see any need for negative comments

prosnap
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 21:01) *
Pro.... Revealing my Id at this point could be detrimental to my position in the company.




Just makes most of us wonder what you/your company has to hide.


Just goes to show what the whole industry is like though. You claim to work for one of the "better" companies yet still will not say who.
ppc_guy
Pro... I have my bpa membership to hide. It sadly forms a necessity for my operation.
instrumentsofjoy
QUOTE (prosnap @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 21:09) *
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 21:01) *
Pro.... Revealing my Id at this point could be detrimental to my position in the company.




Just makes most of us wonder what you/your company has to hide.


Just goes to show what the whole industry is like though. You claim to work for one of the "better" companies yet still will not say who.


Let him stay anonymous if he/she wants to.
southpaw82
QUOTE (uk_mike @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 20:31) *
My fear is that the bigger boys may be able to use their size to minimise the pain that is coming the industries way, and I recognise this will be galling. Many businesses have failed due to larger more dominant competors who seek to manipulate things to place barriers for anyone else to enter.

Which would make them ripe for a competition law enquiry. The amount of back room dealing that goes on is already a red flag in that respect.


QUOTE (prosnap @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 21:09) *
Just makes most of us wonder what you/your company has to hide.


Just ease up, ok? Those of who need to know who he is already know.

andy_foster
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 20:16) *
In the coming weeks a new ata may be formed and it would be nice to have CONSTRUCTIVE input from you guys.


When we refer to PPCs, we generally mean companies who use punitive 'charges' or the threat of such 'charges' as a sanction to ensure compliance with the rules that they or the land owner wish to enforce, on land not owned by them, and make significant profits from motorists paying the 'charges'. These 'charges' are not legally enforceable, and demanding payment of them would almost certainly constitute a criminal offence. Fortunately for the majority of such PPCs, the powers that be are currently reluctant to acknowledge the elephant in the room, and the issues being seized upon are merely at the fringes of the real issues.

Whilst I also appreciate your candour and you taking the time to share useful and interesting information with us, I can see no lawful way for a new ATA (or existing ATA for that matter) to operate with the current business model of PPCs as described above, unless there is a significant change in the law.

When private wheel clamping is outlawed, landowners will no longer have a lawful means to enforce punitive sanctions against motorists who park contrary to their wishes. Civil law never allowed for legally enforceable penalties, but the courts decided that the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria allowed clampers to immobilise cars until a punitive charge was paid. the charge was not enforced by law, but by the clamp.

Landowners will still be able to sue for actual losses (or sue for trespass to claim a nominal sum), but the PPC cannot sue on their behalf unless they debt is sold/assigned to the PPC, and the sums recoverable do not make for an attractive business model.

The current hot potato is PPCs implying that the RK is liable to pay the charge when they are not. Other than this being an issue that the DVLA can sink its teeth into to pretend that it has not utterly abdicated its responsibilities to safeguard keepers' data, without killing the golden goose, I see little substantive difference between this and the PPCs (and POPLA) implying that the driver is liable to pay a charge when he is not.

In the short term, having an ATA which does what the DVLA tells it to do, and has a consistently firm approach to the issues that the DVLA concerns itself with (assuming that the DVLA is ever consistent), as opposed to deliberately turning a blind eye to just about everything and then having a massive panic when they get found out, may address may keep Anne Robinson quiet for a while, but nothing short of abandoning the current business model (or changing the law) will make things legal.

I am struggling to see a viable lawful business model which bears any relation to the current one. A landowner could pay a PPC to manage his car park, albeit far less than many PPCs are currently reaping from motorists, but other than using threats of unlawful sanctions, what could they do for the landowner?
prosnap
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 21:13) *
Just ease up, ok? Those of who need to know who he is already know.



A warning is better than just deleting my posts, which seems to be normal policy.
southpaw82
QUOTE (prosnap @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 21:17) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 21:13) *
Just ease up, ok? Those of who need to know who he is already know.



A warning is better than just deleting my posts, which seems to be normal policy.


Glad you approve.
mickR
QUOTE (prosnap @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 21:17) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 21:13) *
Just ease up, ok? Those of who need to know who he is already know.



A warning is better than just deleting my posts, which seems to be normal policy.


i agree to, this way everybody gets the mesage.
rossi123
-Just wondering , the new appeals service funded by the BPA members, is there any idea if it will be truly independent?

It seems that they are exempt from the FOI,

"http://popla.org.uk/privacy.htm
POPLA is an independent appeals service which considers appeals regarding parking tickets issued on private land. The service is funded by the British Parking Association (BPA) and London Councils is contracted to deliver the POPLA service on behalf of the BPA.

The public has no rights of access to information from POPLA or the BPA under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). London Councils delivers and operates the POPLA service on behalf of the BPA. Information regarding delivery and operation of the service is held by London Councils on behalf of the BPA and is also not available under the FOIA or EIR."

And if every one of the 1.8+million tickets were to appeal how are they going to cope?
bama
I can see a lawful business model - but it wouldn't be yachts and horses money.
So the big players/vested interests who will settle for nothing less than yachts and horses money may resist.
whether such resistance would end up being inadvisable remains to be seen.
Oct 1st changes a lot of things at a lot of levels....
uk_mike
I think the real question is if there will be follow through?

If as some fear clampers keep going will the police step in? Will the DVLAs seemingly harder line continue or is it lip service till things calm down?

The next year is going to be an interesting time for those w HO follow this issue, as we are entering uncharted territory. No doubt there will be surprises for all.
cobblers1
Thanks for your post PPC_guy.
I'm very interested to see how the the "I've been clamped" posts next week pan out.

I predict a lot of the less scrupulous clampers (BPA/SIA or not) will just keep on trying their luck for a while - After all, probably under 10% of people will know about the change in the law so it's a pretty good bet that they'll get away with it. If someone does know, the only real loss will be just taking the clamp off without charge. Yeah, there's a chance of the police being involved but I can't imagine them bothering trying to follow up/prosecute for a few months at least.
ppc_guy
Another major issue is NO clampers have actually been notified
uk_mike
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:18) *
Another major issue is NO clampers have actually been notified


Do you mean about the new laws? I'd be surprised if they do not know.

Who would be responsible or notifying them?
instrumentsofjoy
QUOTE (uk_mike @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:23) *
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:18) *
Another major issue is NO clampers have actually been notified


Do you mean about the new laws? I'd be surprised if they do not know.

Who would be responsible or notifying them?


The equally important thing is have the police been notified?

SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (uk_mike @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:23) *
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:18) *
Another major issue is NO clampers have actually been notified


Do you mean about the new laws? I'd be surprised if they do not know.

Who would be responsible or notifying them?





The SIA should surely be revoking the immobilisation part of their licence by contacting them all?
ppc_guy
The sia even today will issue a vi licence. Clearly most know but those with no Internet may reasonably not know
southpaw82
Unfortunately for them ignorance is not a defence.
ppc_guy
Tbh I don't feel. Ignorance is the point . Lack of information may be
Glacier2
So until the clampers have been notified they can carry on clamping even beyond next Monday.
anon45
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:53) *
QUOTE (uk_mike @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:23) *
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:18) *
Another major issue is NO clampers have actually been notified


Do you mean about the new laws? I'd be surprised if they do not know.

Who would be responsible or notifying them?





The SIA should surely be revoking the immobilisation part of their licence by contacting them all?


The SIA licence requirement is automatically repealed on Monday, on the basis that clamping is now illegal regardless:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2075/made
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9.../part/3/enacted

QUOTE
Provisions coming into force on 1st October 2012

3. The day appointed for the coming into force of the following provisions of the Act is 1st October 2012:
(h)Part 3 of Schedule 10 (repeals and revocations)


Also, I checked the Welsh statutory instruments, and I can still see no sign of section 56 and schedule 4 being commenced in Wales.

As Southpaw82 says, ignorance of the law is not a defence, and clampers may not continue to clamp (or tow etc) without "lawful authority" regardless of the lack of formal notification from the SIA. Since clamping will be illegal, it follows that clamping for ransom is likely to amount to blackmail, extortion and an aggressive commercial practice, similarly to the position in Scotland where it is theft and extortion as per Black v Carmichael 1992 SCCR 709.

In my unqualified opinion, there is also a danger that, since all contracts for clamping on private land without lawful authority will automatically become void on 1 October, it may then be extremely difficult to hold a landowner or managing agent responsible for the illegal actions of the clampers (and the clampers themselves will continue to ignore CCJs with impunity just as before). Others may advice on whether, and to what extent, this is likely to be true.

If clamping does continue on or after Monday, a victim should complain to the police; the Home Office has expressly stated that the police are actively expected to enforce the law, just as they are now doing with the newly criminalised offence of squatting. If the police refuse to get involved, either by continuing to (wrongly) claim "it's a civil matter", or by claiming to be "too busy", it is my opinion that a victim would then be in a position to pursue a self-help remedy* in response to what is indisputably a crime, and one for which the Government has acknowledged the existing civil remedy to be ineffective (*although this would not be wholly risk-free).

I would not be surprised if some clampers falsely claim non-existent "lawful authority" so that the police then fall back on their default position of "civil matter".
Broadsword
QUOTE (instrumentsofjoy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:51) *
QUOTE (uk_mike @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:23) *
QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Fri, 28 Sep 2012 - 23:18) *
Another major issue is NO clampers have actually been notified


Do you mean about the new laws? I'd be surprised if they do not know.

Who would be responsible or notifying them?


The equally important thing is have the police been notified?


The following text is from a briefing note that was prepared for Chief Constables (some months ago I believe);

"The use of wheel-clamps to deter wrongful parking was justified by the fact the driver had implicitly consented to it. By entering land on which were prominently displayed signs warning of clamping, s/he voluntarily assumed the risk of being clamped if s/he parked there without right or permission. Section 54(2) of the Act makes it clear that such implied consent can no longer be an excuse for clamping a vehicle. Without this justification, the use of wheel clamps on private land is definitely rendered unlawful and an offence". (my emphasis)


buttonpusher
If the landowners contract with a clamper is voided on Oct 1 who would you claim from if knuckle draggers continue to clamp? Some people will pay and then come on here for help. Would you still be able to sue landowner etc? Sure as eggs are eggs the clamper would just ignore.
ItchyCrakus
QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Sat, 29 Sep 2012 - 08:04) *
If the landowners contract with a clamper is voided on Oct 1 who would you claim from if knuckle draggers continue to clamp? Some people will pay and then come on here for help. Would you still be able to sue landowner etc? Sure as eggs are eggs the clamper would just ignore.


You wouldnt. You would report it to the police and they would deal with it. It is theft and the courts would get you your money back for free.
buttonpusher
Thanks just wanted to be clear.
roythebus
Clampers have always been ignorant anyway, so no change there! cool.gif

Well done to PPC-guy for coming on here, much the same goes for the like of Sgt Dixie and my favourite adversary Just for the Pictures.

It's always welcome to hear both sides of an argument even if we may disagree strongly with what's being said or the other side's ethics.

The PPC industry has had its own greedy way for far too long ripping people off and getting away with it. A question: if the BPA is mentioned in law as the representative trade body and it folds, will the law need to be re-written? dry.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.