BPA reject my complaint

[jax50]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

A new CoP came into force 2nd Jan 2018.
I reckon it is accepted now by most people who have an understanding of the 'politics' of the current shambolic parking regimes, that self-regulation has been a spectacular failure*, especially when you have 2 trade associations competing for business.
It must be obvious to anyone that firms will go to the system which gives them the greatest benefit. Or at least, they can use the threat of doing so as powerful leverage to get the results that they want,
As usual, it is the motorist who suffers.

That response from BPA is a classic example.......a load of waffle & gobbledegook to try & justify what, to any reasonable person, is incredulous.

*Unless you happen to be a parking co, in which case it is a resounding & very profitable success.

Did you see the bit about a parking regulation bill going through Parliament?

[charitynjw]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

Did you see the bit about a parking regulation bill going through Parliament?

Sir Greg Knight.
Yes....2nd reading in HoC in February.

Btw, it is quite unusual for a private member's Bill to get to that stage. It has a lot of influential support from other MPs.

[jax50]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

I'm supposed to be receiving revised invoices / demands as they didn't deduct the £50 I have already paid, according to what the BPA told me anyway... I'm trusting that I'll receive nothing and LCP will just go away. It's over 7 months since the original 'incident' but maybe they've got it in for me for the other £50 ..and the costs now amounting to £96. Incidentally, if the original debt collectors letters and solicitors letters were incorrect I'm presuming those costs go away now as they'll have to start again and surely cannot charge me for letters which were incorrect ?

[jax50]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

Hmm,spoke too soon, letter from Solicitors yesterday complaining I haven't taken any action from their previous threats (albeit demanding the wrong amount of money)..and now saying 14 days to pay . The amount is £146, which includes £96 of fees and charges now... I'm tempted to write back and demand they remove the spurious charges for the wrong amount demanded in their threatograms...

[topolinodichiesa]

Re: BPA reject my complaint

No advertising consent is a criminal act and, as has been said, an application can not be backdated. As the sign is there illegally then a contract can not created by an illegal act.

If failure to obtain advertising consent is an offence, but they have not been convicted of it, how can that be used against them in a civil proceeding? Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. Should a civil court speculate about the PPC's guilt? This could be another reason why the illegality defence is not much of a sure thing.

Personally, I've often wondered if more could be done re weaponised parking law, such as entering into negotiations with the PPC prior to the completion of the "acceptance by parking" presumed by the courts. Counter-offer, anyone? Sadly, I never get PCNs...

--Topolino di Chiesa

[jax50]

Re: BPA reject my complaint


If failure to obtain advertising consent is an offence, but they have not been convicted of it, how can that be used against them in a civil proceeding? Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. Should a civil court speculate about the PPC's guilt? This could be another reason why the illegality defence is not much of a sure thing.

Personally, I've often wondered if more could be done re weaponised parking law, such as entering into negotiations with the PPC prior to the completion of the "acceptance by parking" presumed by the courts. Counter-offer, anyone? Sadly, I never get PCNs...

--Topolino di Chiesa

It is an offence not to comply with the legislation, it says so in the Act...so if you don't comply you are guilty of an offence - it doesn't need any further proof although if the local council judge from an appeal that the transgression was ok, for some other reason, it might weaken the case..but in my case the council agreed with me, and demanded the car park operator apply for planning approval,they haven't appealed. If the operator fails to do that they can be fined, but fining doesn't then confirm guilt because they are already guilty but can be remedied if the operator then submits applications and they are approved, then they are no longer breaking the law. There is no innocent until proved guilty because the penalty for failure is written into statute..and there is no back dating , so the offence for the period involved can not be rectified.

[jax50]

Getting near 'deadline' day..the solicitors said I had until 11th to cough up the ££'s, which I haven't. So it's now down to them to decide if it goes any further..Meanwhile I noted another item in the BPA CoP about limits on the amount debt collectors and solicitors can charge, £25 for DC and an overall maximum of £70....I also have in mind I read 'somewhere' that PPC's should not pursue claims for 'just a few minutes'...but I can't recall where I read this ?

I hope you guys will stick with me if it comes to the crunch because you've been very helpful to me thus far...

[topolinodichiesa]

It is an offence not to comply with the legislation, it says so in the Act...so if you don't comply you are guilty of an offence - it doesn't need any further proof although if the local council judge from an appeal that the transgression was ok, for some other reason, it might weaken the case..but in my case the council agreed with me, and demanded the car park operator apply for planning approval,they haven't appealed. If the operator fails to do that they can be fined, but fining doesn't then confirm guilt because they are already guilty but can be remedied if the operator then submits applications and they are approved, then they are no longer breaking the law. There is no innocent until proved guilty because the penalty for failure is written into statute..and there is no back dating , so the offence for the period involved can not be rectified.

This isn't my area, but I don't think it works like that.Â* Criminal guilt is never "obvious", it must always be proved.Â* In asking a civil court to take "judicial notice" that a criminal act has occurred, I doubt many would accept the invitation without there being a criminal conviction.Â* A court can take notice of facts, but guilt is not a fact, it is a legal conclusion.Â* What happens if the civil court "accepts" that a crime has occurred and bases a civil decision on that "fact", and then the defendant is acquitted of the crime?Â* Sorry?

--Topolino di ChiesaÂ*

[jax50]

This isn't my area, but I don't think it works like that.Â* Criminal guilt is never "obvious", it must always be proved.Â* In asking a civil court to take "judicial notice" that a criminal act has occurred, I doubt many would accept the invitation without there being a criminal conviction.Â* A court can take notice of facts, but guilt is not a fact, it is a legal conclusion.Â* What happens if the civil court "accepts" that a crime has occurred and bases a civil decision on that "fact", and then the defendant is acquitted of the crime?Â* Sorry?

--Topolino di ChiesaÂ*

thankyou for that - I am certainly no expert but I kind of follow what you say there. In the end, I don't think this would carry any weight anyway, but maybe background information that might slightly nudge a bit of support, depending on the judge. The BPA CoP (for what it's worth) have to deal with the operator over this to ensure continued compliance with the code, which enable access to DVLA records. So they are 'on the case'. I know the BPA are not a regulatory body but , as stated by the judge in Beavis, membership needs compliance because membership allows access to driver details. I'm not sure how multiple breaches of the CoP sits in court but again the BPA refuse to get involved with drivers, they say that is a matter for the courts. What I lack are legal decisions that support my circumstances about the various breaches by the car park operator of the CoP...like signs, ANPR cameras, grace periods, and failure to follow process. etc etc.