Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all,   Could any of the site team (or experienced site membes) give me any guidance on the above defence .   I need to have it in by Friday at latest, and was hoping to submit tomorrow to make sure that its lodged in good time   Many thanks in advance x 
    • Sorry but sounds like early days if CWD and lately IDR. Been dealing with this since 2009 and still going on as well as those crazy collection agency’s in Dubai also still emailing to this day.    I set up a special email account where I have everything from CWD, IDR and all others so it’s all in one place and the laws that have been broken.  Upon discussions also with R. Sterling at detained in Dubai its also been helpful.    Currently with the FO with my complaints against the attempted collection of debt in the UK when it has not been passed through the correct channels regardless of what is in the T&C.    Personally I would not pay any ting until as people know that debt has been passed through the correct manner of courts in the UAE or indeed purchased by a UK company which then I will be happy to defend given the laws here and whT I have available.    Make sure to ask for everything when the time come all statements, extra charges terms at the time of supposed signing etc !    Listen to the team also 
    • I'm sorry the CAB have given me some terrible advice in the past, and some others on here.  Please do as Andyorch says above. do not use Moriaty's forms.  Do not fill in ANY income and Expenditure for Moriarty. They have no more right ot demand that from you than I do.
    • Why are you considering Bankruptcy...they have not even issued a court claim yet ?    Its vital you use our forms provided in the link ...not the ones Moriaty have sent you.
    • Its already statute barred in my book...the Statute of limitations is quite clear...its just that the Judge in this recent case with PRA is trying to move the goal posts for his DCA chums by stating the period of limitation begins when the creditor issues a default notice and the 14 days have elapsed...that is what he classes as the cause of action...not the fact that creditor have failed to serve a DN in over  8 years..decides to serve one now which in effect makes the statute barred limitation period since last payment 14 years.   The Limitations states that the period of six years starts with no payment or acknowledgment within 6 years from when the cause of action accrues ...accrues being the operative word...the Act does not state accrues starts from the issuance of the defect notice, .....it as always been the cause of accrues from the last missed contractual payment...thats what determines the cause of action.   But the CCA1974 states that a creditor is not entitled to enforce an agreement until a valid default notice is served...so this Judge in his wisdom has tried to fuse the two acts together...which is obviously nonsense.. he has not allowed for creditors who serve the notice late or not at all.
  • Our picks

Michael Browne

Behind the scene BPA upsets PPC's

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2518 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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:

 

 

"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.

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=73472

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

There must be loads of proof on this one. I will do a bit of research but a number of companies spring to mind.

 

 

What a shame they are having all this upheaval when they are already very busy hanging up their clamps.

Edited by Crocdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the RK will still not be liable for the payment, what was the point in bringing in "keeper liability"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was that someone miscalculated, I suspect, and the BPA thought they were getting something they weren't. One could well understand how some PPC's might think they had been sold down the river. Having been told on the one hand that RK liability was going to be the answer to the ills of the widely employed "ignore" strategy, at the 11th hour they've come to the realisation that it doesn't. As we have been saying for at least 6 months.

 

If there is no backlash to this I'd eat my hat. Perky must be seething.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point was that someone miscalculated, I suspect, and the BPA thought they were getting something they weren't. One could well understand how some PPC's might think they had been sold down the river. Having been told on the one hand that RK liability was going to be the answer to the ills of the widely employed "ignore" strategy, at the 11th hour they've come to the realisation that it doesn't. As we have been saying for at least 6 months.

 

If there is no backlash to this I'd eat my hat. Perky must be seething.

 

 

He is properly eating a lot of pork pies to get over it

 

Comfort eating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...