As per this post on the Parking Pranksters blog. You really couldn't make it up! Unless you're the BPA of course, then you can make up anything you'd like

My sis in law has just received a PCN in the post. The cahrge is the usual £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. At the bottom of the letter it has the IPC logo but on the signs they still display the BPA logo. The signage in the piece of land where she parked consists of 3 A0 sized signs fixed to the wall of the building in front, there is no entrance sign. The other potential problem is that the PCN is addressed to her late husband who has only recently been buried. Does anybody have any suggestions of where to go from here..... Thanks in advance t-star

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/290903/response/710349/attach/html/2/Green%20response%20FOI%202015%2057.pdf.html https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/money_owed_by_the_british_parkin#comment-62932 Revealed first on the Pranksters comments section: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/parkingeye-anpr-blunders-again.html#comment-form

How will things be affected if an Enforcement company sales Director becomes Vice Chair of the BPA? Do you want to know more? if so catch up on this here http://rossandroberts.com/about-us/news/featured/bpa-south-west-group-elects-adrian-lardner-as-vice-chair/ "Adrian Lardner, Ross & Roberts’ Sales & Marketing Director has been elected as Vice Chair of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) South West Group."

As has been previously mentioned on here ANPR have now been given the boot by the BPA Ltd. This is their press release:- http://britishparking.co.uk/News/bpa-terminates-membership-of-anpr-limited And about time too!

Version 5 of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice has now been published. Among smaller changes and tweaks, this removes the requirement for 'charges' to reflect a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (I think you'd still win with this as a basis for defence in court) and replaces it with the words "Commercially Justified". Which is a giant can of worms if you ask me. http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2014_update_V5.pdf

The Prankster has blogged about a British Parking Association advisory panel meeting; http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/bpa-drop-requirement-for-charge-to-be.html

Should the BPA logo appear on their letter if they are truly a member does anyone know? Cheers Paul

Parking News-issue 324 October. Private car parking FINES... http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/324/18/ '£93m paid in private car parking FINES in 2011 according to DVLA'

The following is a link to an excellent press story featured today regarding the frankly pathetic shambles of private parking enforcement and proof once again that "cowboy clampers" have indeed turned into "cowboy ticketers" . The article also states that apparently POPLA are struggling with appeals and that DVLA have made a fortune from selling personal data. As you will also see, BPA are confirming that CEL are under "investigation" for their failure to abide by the BPA's "recommendations" by capping the maximum charge of their tickets at £100 !!! Only a few days ago local authorities were stunned by the surprise joint Press Release from DCLG and the DfT regarding the plans to curb CCTV cameras because of the damage that was being done to the high street by the excessive ticketing of motorists by local authorities. There can be no doubt that DfT will be putting "private parking companies" under investigation ( if they are not already doing so). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442223/Private-spy-cameras-used-tickets-clamping-banned-private-land.html

It would seem that the "independent" POPLA appeals body is not "independent" after all !!! This morning I was sent a link to a parking "blog" which displays copies of emails obtained under the Feedom of Information Act which appears to demonstrate that POPLA have been secretly holding "coaching sessions" with parking companies In London and Birmingham. These coaching sessions are designed to HELP the parking companies to WIN POPLA appeals !!! http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/popla-caught-secretly-coaching-parking.html

A few days ago I complained to the BPA about Parking Eye's letters which try to justify they so-called pre-estimate of loss by including all their day-to-day running expenses and fixed costs. Believe it or not, this is the idiotic reply I received back:- Thank you for your e-mail. Please be advised Parking Eye are within their rights in regards to their parking charge notices and their pre-estimate of loss. Parking Eye would have calculated the sum as a genuine pre-estimate of their losses as they incur significant costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified, including but not restricted to the following examples: · Employment of parking attendants to patrol the parking location to include supervisory staff and vehicles, training, uniforms, etc. · Ad-hoc mobile patrols of the parking location · Supply & installation ANPR equipment, monitoring and maintenance · Erection and maintenance of the site signage · Parking payment and enforcement equipment to include the pay & display machines, hand held devices, cameras, etc. · Membership and other fees requiring payment in order to manage the business effectively including those paid to BPA, DVLA and ICO · General costs including stationery, postage etc · Employment of office based administrative staff along with systems and software · Contribution to Head Office overheads Please note that this sum will be clearly laid out on the signage at the parking location which offers the parking contract to the motorist, and by remaining at the site, Parking Eye will contend that the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of that contract including the charges for breach of contract, and furthermore accepts that they are reasonable. We do not feel it is right to seek to change the terms of an established contract after it has been breached. If the motorist was unhappy with the contract terms, then the motorist should not have remained at the location. Parking Eye’s breakdown of costs does not breach our code of practice and therefore we are unable to investigate the matter further. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Kind regards, AOS Investigations Team I think somebody needs some basic education on company finance and the difference between losses and costs.

Rarely audited, rarely inspected – no wonder private car parks are a rip-off [8 April 2013] The woeful level of inspection of signage at car parks has been laid bare by an admission from the British Parking Association that its annual audit of 163 private parking members includes a mandatory minimum of only ONE car park being inspected per member. So of the roughly 17,000 private car parks in the UK, all festooned with signs and markings, it’s quite possible that only about 200 are ever seen by the BPA’s supposedly independent external scrutineers, who have admitted to Plain Language Commission in the past that they have little or no specialist knowledge of readability or legibility. The BPA told us last week: ‘We do not and cannot keep close tabs on every private car park managed by a BPA member but we currently carry out as many audits as we possibly can within a self-regulatory framework. We audit every Approved Operator[‘]s entire business model every year in addition to inspecting a minimum of one car park, managed by each operator annually. The car park is chosen at random so that the operator cannot know in advance which one we will be inspecting.’ The BPA’s lack of ‘close tabs’ was confirmed by its staff member Peter Beasley who told one concerned motorist: ‘We are not in a position to visit the thousand of ... member car parks and check all the signage.’ Funny that, because the BPA delights in telling aggrieved drivers all about its stringent inspection regime, and its battle cry is ‘raising standards’. Naturally the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the government agency in business partnership with the BPA, swallows whole the BPA’s 'high standards’ rhetoric. It’s emerged from a Freedom of Information enquiry that the DVLA, which releases details of two million drivers a year to BPA members so that they can be chased for payment of penalties, visits these members to audit them not once every six months, not once every year, not once every two years, but once every three years. So this whole enormous so-called ‘industry’ – which produces little but anguish and misery across the country as it chases drivers for £160million in penalties every year on the basis of very dodgy signage – is not only unregulated but virtually uninspected by the organizations that make money out of it. Consumer campaigner and ex-Fraud Squad detective Nev Metson says he has yet to come across a single private parking ticket that complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act, which came into force on 1 October 2012. Unless the tickets – often demanding £100 – comply, the companies cannot enforce them in the courts and the DVLA has no legal basis for releasing registered-keeper data to them. (Yes, the Government is probably breaking the Data Protection Act again.) It looks increasingly as if the entire private parking industry is based on a massive bluff. Why do Trading Standards departments sit back and do nothing as consumers continue to be fleeced by companies equipped with little more than surveillance cameras, a nice line in aggressive letter-writing, and enough brass neck to start a foundry? http://www.clearest.co.uk/news/2013/4/8/Rarely%20audited%20rarely%20inspected%20no%20wonder%20private%20car%20parks%20are%20a%20ripoff?page=2

I've just noticed this:- Of course, it is true, they are a "not for profit" ... but at the same time, it is not true - because they are a non-independent organisation which is set up to ensure the interests of the parking industry members. The BPA is set up with the intention of fronting and protecting a highly profitable industry. There is no altruism about them. The exist for the profits of their members. Their members join them and support them in order to ensure their continuing profitability. So, "not for profit"? ... Yes - but at the same time, somehow - No.

Of course, POPLA is not independent of the BPA or of the industry in general. However, one of its effects will be to persuade people of a legitimacy of the private parking industry and of the BPA. It will also make many people feel that maybe a POPLA decision validates or legitimates the original penalty which has been foisted upon the motorist - and that if they lose their "appeal" then they should put their hands up and pay. POPLA is not independent The decisions I have seen are flawed both in their procedure and in their rationale. I would not accept the statistics claimed by the BPA without an agreed independent audit and without knowing more about them anyway. POPLA is not susceptible to enquiries under the FOIA If POPLA is so independent, then why does the BPA publish their news messages for them? HMV may be going down the toilet but His Master's Voice is alive and well!

Posted by PPCguy on Pepipoo 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: 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. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=73472

There is a very interesting new post on the British Parking Association website regarding the introduction of keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act and the new"independent appeals service" . Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to have more bullet holes than Rab C Nesbitt's String vest. £27.00 + vat per appeal, with the outcome only binding on the Private Parking Company.

Compliments of Nev - a tireless worker for the rights of motorists in the UK I have an idea that the BPA at some point claimed that there about 36,000 cases per year? Maybe someone can correct me Data (2).xls

You may be aware that there is a clause in a bill before parliament at the moment that seems to be going unchallenged. Part 3, Chapter 2, Clause 56 of The Protection of Freedoms is designed to make the registered keeper liable for any private parking fines where it is not possible to identify the driver responsible for the parking infringement. This clause has the backing of, and heavy lobbying from, the British Parking Association due to the revenue stream it will generate for its members. The premis of innocent until proven guilty will be removed from a purely civil matter using heavy handed criminal powers. There is a website that explains our opposition to this clause and how it will affect every driver in the UK: stopclause56.org.uk There is also an e-petition so we can let the government know that we are opposed: epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/6342 Please read, sign up and spread the word. 'tang.