Monday, 30 September 2013

Parking Poker. Debt Recovery Plus try and pull out of the game.

The story so far...

The Prankster double dipped Leigh Delamere Services. CP Plus sent an NtK which was out of time so The Prankster appealed on this basis. CP Plus refused to accept this as an appeal even though they had for a previous case (and lost at POPLA when they withdrew). The Prankster complained to the BPA, who ruled that CP Plus could decide what was and was not an appeal. CP Plus referred the matter to Debt Recovery Plus who wrote to The Prankster twice. The Prankster wrote to CP Plus again, with some pictures of his car in a different car park, but CP Plus had no 'relationship' with that operator. Following the excellent advice of Mr Mustard, The Prankster complained to the Credit Services Agency about DRP's letters.

The story continues...

Complaining to the CSA was not straightforward. The Prankster sent in his complaint to the address on the web site but then got sent a form asking him to provide the same information all over again but this time in special boxes on the form. The Prankster should have read the instructions more carefully! Eventually, the 'proper' complaint got sent off.

I would like to raise a complaint regarding the activities of Debt Recovery Plus.
Fishing expedition
As you can see from the letters already sent to you, they are writing to me as the registered keeper to pursue a parking charge. The requirements of schedule 4 of POFA 2012 have not been met, (as confirmed by the letter (1) from CP Plus on 28 May) and so they can only pursue the driver for this charge.
As you can see from DRP’s letter of 12 July (3), they do not know who the driver is, stating:
“If you were not the driver of the vehicle…”I consider this breaches the following key requirement of your code of practice:
1x. Take reasonable steps to ensure the person being contacted is in fact the debtor
This is therefore a fishing expedition. As they have confirmed they do not know who the debtor is, they should cease collection efforts.
Premature collection efforts
In addition, the matter is still undergoing the appeals process of the car park operator, CP Plus, and therefore they should not be pursuing the debt until this process is complete. I still have not had a reply from CP Plus from my letter of 3 June (2).
The British Parking Association Code of Practice, to which CP Plus adheres, states:
22.6 When you receive a challenge about the issue of a parking charge, you must stop work on processing the charge immediately. You must not increase the charge until you have replied to the challenge.I consider this breaches code of practice 1a, which requires them to comply with all relevant regulations.
They should therefore cease collection activities until the appeals process in complete.
Not answering questions
In addition, I do not feel they have acted reasonably when answering my letter of 22 July (4). Their reply is enclosed (5)
1)      They have not provided a breakdown of how the charge of £120 is calculated, as asked
2)      They have not confirmed the creditor is MOTO, as asked
3)      They have not provided a copy of the correspondence from MOTO they refer to, as asked.
4)      In addition, they have come up with a totally fictitious reason as to why this correspondence cannot be supplied, because it was ‘computer generated’. I can confirm that I have received duplicate copies of correspondence from the same source in the past and so I know this to be fiction.
I feel that this is therefore in breach of your code of practice
1o Comply with all reasonable requests for information…
They should therefore provide this information without further attempts at obfuscation or, in the case of (4), blatant lies.
Legal Threats
In addition, they have threatened legal action. The car park operator, CP Plus filed no small claims in the period 01/10/2012 to 30/06/2013 and therefore I find this threat extremely unlikely, especially as the driver is not known and in law only the driver can be claimed against.
This is against your terms of practice
10.a Only state an intention to commence proceedings that are reasonably likely to be undertaken against…
They should therefore cease to threaten legal action on behalf of CP Plus in all future letters, not only to myself but also to all other motorists. This should continue until CP Plus change their established practice of never commencing legal proceedings.
Please inform me of the results of your enquiry.
Already sent:
1.       Letter from CP Plus confirming POFA does not reply (stet. Oops, should be 'apply')
2.       Letter to CP Plus confirming appeal reasons
3.       Letter from DRP
4.       Letter to DRP
5.     Second letter from DRP

This then got forwarded to DRP by the CSA, so that DRP could investigate. Sane people might question the rationale of having a company investigate a complaint about themselves, but we do not live in a sane world. At least the CSA does check the results of the investigation by DRP after 4 weeks.

After a while, The Prankster got a reply. DRP are obviously trying to edge themselves out of the game. They have mysteriously 'closed the account' and trust that this will make the complaint go away. Of course, not being especially competent, they have also confused the reference and ticket numbers with a simultaneous game of Parking Poker they are playing with the Prankster regarding a different ticket. (The Prankster has not complained about that one to the CSA yet). Out of nowhere, a recording of the vehicle entering and leaving the site on multiple occasions seems to have also appeared. Perhaps a lot of time and effort could have been saved if CP plus had come up with this recording at an earlier date.

The Prankster therefore replied asking them to carry on their investigations.

Dear Debt Recovery Plus,
Thank you for your letter of 23rd September. I admit to being a little confused. You use a reference of 338128 but a ticket number of TCO8413436 which does not belong to that reference, but to reference 395832. In the circumstances please could you clear up this confusion by explaining:
1)      Has case reference 338128 been closed by yourself?
2)      Has case reference 395832 been closed by yourself?
3)      Please explain why you have not previously contacted me to explain why the case(s) were closed
4)      Has parking charge TCO8413436 been cancelled by the parking operator?
5)      Has parking charge 0437130418008 been cancelled by the parking operator?
Your letter to me does not address the substance of my complaint, which was several fold;
a)      You wrote to me confirming both that POFA 2012 did not apply and that you did not know who the driver was. This is therefore a breach of (1.x)  of your code of conduct
b)      You wrote to me while the appeals process was still active with the operator, which is a breach of their code of conduct (22.6) and therefore also a breach of your code of conduct (1.a)
c)       You did not answer my questions, either ignoring them or answering with untruths. This is a breach of your code of conduct (1.o)
d)      You threatened legal action when it is known the operator never pursues cases to court and that as per point (a) legal action is even more unlikely. This is a breach of (10.a)
Please therefore pursue your investigations into these breaches of your code of conduct.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Sunday, 29 September 2013

Prankster story on Daily Mail. Airport slammed by Nick Smith, MP

The Mail on Sunday picked up the story regarding VCS and their pay to play activity at Liverpool's John Lennon Airport. Nick Smith MP attacked the parking charges as predatory.

A VCS spokesman said: ‘If people receive notices it is because they have not followed the clear warnings and signs on site.’

Alas, if only this were true. If VCS were to put up clear signs and warning that would eat into their loot, so it is not likely to happen. At 10 tickets per days they would rake in over £300,000 a year, so there is no incentive to actually warn motorists.

The airport state that tickets are issued on safety grounds to prevent accidents.

The Prankster is interested in seeing statistics on tickets issued since the contract started on 28 June 2012. If they have not gone down over the year, then the strategy is clearly not working and should be revised. Perhaps introducing clear signage would be a good start. Perhaps removing the one car parked on the roads day in and day out would also be a contribution to safety. On the other hand, if no accidents have ever been caused by the camera car, perhaps parking is not a safety issue after all.

Shock horror...perhaps this is just a revenue generator and not to do with safety after all.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Monday, 23 September 2013

How much does John Lennon Airport make from outsourcing parking?

How much is the right to enforce airport parking worth? A lot!

Vehicle Control Systems Limited make a lot of money at John Lennon Airport in Liverpool. They put up unreadable signs, then patrol the airport roads with smart cars equipped with periscope cameras, trapping unsuspecting motorists who stop to drop off passengers. Unsurprisingly, this annoys a lot of motorists who are unaware that this is not allowed until they get a charge in the post. Not everyone at the airport likes or agrees with this, and The Parking Prankster's mole has provided him with the following information.

Q. How much do VCS pay for the right to enforce parking?
A. VCS pay £25,000 a year to John Lennon Airport?

Q. Do VCS pay anything else?
A. Yes, they pay JLA a commission on each ticket paid?

Q. How much?
A. It varies depending on how many tickets are paid each month. If VCS average 1-10 tickets a day, they pay 12.5% commission. For 11-15 they pay 25% and for tickets over that, 35%.

Q. Can JLA cancel tickets?
A. Yes, if they write to tell VCS to cancel a ticket at any time, then VCS must comply.

Q. Do VCS have the right to enforce tickets in court?
A. Yes, but only with the prior written permission of JLA

Q. Do VCS have any car park management duties?
A. You must be having a laugh. No, they only issue parking charges. Gritting, cleaning, snow and graffiti removal are all done by someone else.

Q. Who sets the level of charges?
A. VCS do, with JLA consent

Q. Are there any disabled driver concessions?
A. No

The Prankster considers that the signage at the airport is not sufficient to warn motorists that parking charges apply. (The signage he has seen is from Google maps and is dated September 2012, 3 months after the VCS contract started in June 2012. It may however have changed since then). There is only one sign at the entrance, which is placed so that it is not visible until you actually turn in. It is hidden by the fence until you turn, and is placed so close to the entrance that you do not have time to read it as you are driving past. The sign warns that stopping is not allowed, but does not say that charges apply or how much they are, and is not compliant with British Parking Association Ltd entrance sign requirements.

(pictures copyright Google maps)

The Prankster therefore recommends that anyone who gets a parking charge for stopping appeals to POPLA on the grounds that the signage is not adequate and that the charge is not a pre-estimate of loss, as it includes commission payments.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

(If anyone has up to date pictures or maps of the signage, please email them to The Prankster).

Sunday, 22 September 2013

POPLA show institutional bias by suspending case for parking company to submit more evidence...but cock up dates

[Update; the motorist has been in touch with the Prankster to correct some factual errors. The debt collector letter referred to earlier was for another ticket issued by Secure-a-Space and one where the operator has currently refused to accept that the motorists representations were an appeal. This may well turn into another blog entry...]

The Parking Prankster has been given permission by the motorist concerned to publicise POPLA's latest cock up.

The motorist appealed to POPLA, with one of the appeal grounds being that he was not the driver. The operator's evidence stated that this does not matter if the conditions of POFA 2012 have been satisfied, because they can pursue the registered keeper instead. Crucially, they provided no evidence to POPLA that they had in fact satisfied the conditions of POFA 2012.

This should have been a cut and dried case, with the motorist's appeal upheld by POPLA. No evidence, no case to answer! If the ball had been on the other foot, POPLA would have immediately ruled on behalf of the operator. Here is their statement on the matter from their web site:
The Assessor will not obtain evidence or contact witnesses on your behalf.
Incredibly, the assessor adjourned the case and wrote to the operator asking them to provide more details, asking the operator to either provide evidence who the driver was, or evidence that they had followed the requirements of POFA 2012 correctly. The case was adjourned for 14 days for this to happen. He also asked the motorist to name the driver.

The Prankster considers that POPLA is not behaving in an independent manner by doing this, and is in fact showing institutional bias towards the parking operators.The Prankster notes as one of many 'for instances' that his own appeal was turned down because a witness statement proving the car was 'elsewhere' did not state where 'elsewhere' was. In the Prankster's case, the assessor did not adjourn the case to ask for clarification, but ruled on behalf of the operator.

At this point the case descends into high farce. The assessor suspended the case until the 24th July. However, apparently forgetting this, he reassessed the case one day early on 23rd July, finding in favour of the motorist because the operator did not supply any evidence.

The transcript is produced here:
23 July 2013
Reference: 731xxx3xxx
A Motorist (Appellant)
Secure-A-Space (Operator)
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
 Ordinarily, liability for a parking charge rests with the person driving at the time of the alleged breach. In his initial representations, the Appellant stated “I wasn’t the driver at the time the car was parked”.
The Operator, declining the Appellant’s initial representations, responded:
“Whether you claim to be the driver or not does not change the process we follow with unpaid Parking Charge Notices. We may request the registered keeper details from the DVLA once time to pay has expired. The registered keeper must then either provide details of the driver or accept responsibility for the Parking Charge Notice themselves.”
The Operator outlined its position accurately. Where a parking charge notice is issued to a vehicle, but the driver’s identity and current postal address remain unforthcoming, an operator may recover the parking charge from the vehicle’s registered keeper. To do so, an operator must issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The Appellant appealed to POPLA on various grounds, including the issue that the Operator did not have the driver’s details. The appeal was adjourned on 10 July 2013 until 24 July 2013 for either party to provide the driver’s details or, in the case of the Operator, to show that the registered keeper was liable.
The Appellant responded by declining to provide the driver’s details. The Operator did not respond.
Accordingly, in the absence of the driver’s details, the Operator has not established that the registered keeper is liable for the parking charge as required by the aforementioned act.
I must therefore allow the appeal on this ground.
It therefore does not fall for me to consider any remaining issues.
Matthew Shaw
The whole situation is a shambles and still has not ended. The operator is hopping mad at POPLA because they did in fact produce their evidence at the last minute on 24 July. The operator is demanding that the case be re-opened. This is a violation of the BPA Ltd code of practice.

The motorist has complained to the BPA Ltd, but they appear to have missed the point that the operator has not accepted POPLA's verdict, (despite being a massive cock up by POPLA, the code of conduct does not allow the operator to appeal). They brushed off the complaint, thanking the motorist for his help in driving up standards in the parking industry.

No doubt this will all be resolved soon. The Prankster believes that since POPLA had no right to adjourn the case anyway, and were certainly colluding with the parking company by trying to trick the motorist into naming the driver, that they should uphold the appeal. The Prankster also believes the BPA Ltd should re-open this case and investigate further why the operators has not cancelled the charge after POPLA ruled on behalf of the motorist.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Saturday, 21 September 2013

T & S Parking Services missing, presumed dead

This FoI request shows that the DVLA turned up to do an audit at T & S Parking Services, but no-one was home.
T & S Parking Services Ltd, Manchester – audit scheduled for 20 February 2013 was aborted due to the car parking company not at the address when the auditor called. T & S Parking Services Ltd no longer makes enquiries.
No doubt motorists everywhere are sobbing into their cornflakes at the sad demise of this much loved parking company.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Thursday, 19 September 2013

POPLA win a temporary reprieve

Previously The Parking Prankster reported that POPLA was under threat. The parking operator's don't like it; the Department for Transport doesn't like it; motorists don't like it and internally even the assessors are repeatedly snubbing the Lead Adjudicator's authority.

Today, it seems like POPLA has won a reprieve, if only temporarily. The July 18minutes of the BPA Ltd AOS meeting are available here, (post #14), and they show that a vote was taken on whether POPLA should be put out of its misery.

3 members supported a vote to terminate POPLA at the earliest opportunity and re-let to an alternate supplier. Nick Lester did not vote for this option. (This isn't because he works for London Councils, the body running POPLA; rather, he left the meeting before the vote.)

8 members supported a vote to re-write the contract, impose stricter terms and conditions, and once these are violated terminate the contract and re-let. This may provide an earlier get-out than waiting for the 18 month break clause. Although POPLA may whine and complain at having the contract re-written, the BPA are past masters at changing the goal-posts. Inconvenient terms and conditions are a fluid concept for the BPA Ltd and so POPLA are not likely to win this argument.

One member abstained. This takes the total to 13 of the 16 present. Initially, The Prankster thought that the BPA had applied a 40% discount to the votes as an early-bird discount, but later considered that perhaps some of those present did not have voting rights.

POPLA is therefore safe for the moment, at least until they fail to meet their performance targets or the 18 month break period arrives. The Prankster wonders whether the printers at POPLA palace are busy spewing out CV's.

The Prankster also notes that the minutes are very brief compared to previous minutes. Presumably this is because the BPA Ltd now know they will be available via FoI requests.

A financial projection paper on POPLA was distributed, but has not been provided. A proposal was made regarding fees, but was voted against. Although the minutes do not state what the proposal was, The Prankster assumes that it was a fee increase to take account of projected increases in POPLA costs. The Prankster wonders how POPLA will be funded if the operators do not want to pay for it; presumably the BPA Ltd will have to tighten its belt.

Two code of practice items were proposed for review. The minutes do not state which items these were.

Lastly, some board members were highly miffed that the government had allowed competition into this sector, and appointed a second ATA. Other board members were quiet - perhaps because they are already contemplating jumping ship. The Prankster will keep an eye on the situation.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

Are POPLA's days numbered?

In the executive Board Meeting of the BPA which took place on May 23rd, it became apparent that the BPA were not happy with the performance of POPLA with regard to the backlog of cases:
Patrick Troy, Chief Executive of the BPA Ltd, confirmed that an 18 month break clause has been put into the contract with London Councils in view of the performance issues.
POPLA's days may therefore be numbered. Costs are already more than expected and this will only get worse now that more assessors have been employed.

As well as performance, the AOS members are also unhappy that the assessors are sometimes correctly applying the law. Apparently, the operators believe they are more qualified to judge legal matters than law graduates under the supervision of a barrister with many years experience of parking.
Ashley Bijster, managing director of Imperial Civil Enforcement Limited stated that the feedback she has received from operators following the last AOS Board meeting was that they are very unhappy with the service provided and have negative perceptions which are impacting on the BPA, and that some of the decisions are being made by people apparently without sufficient knowledge of the relevant law.
Although POPLA have shown a large bias towards parking companies, this is apparently not enough for the AOS members. One wonders who they will get to replace POPLA?

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Friday, 13 September 2013

POPLA discard 35 day rule. BPA Ltd code of practice deemed not relevant

POPLA, in an amazing display of kowtowing to their masters, the BPA Ltd, have revoked their requirement for the operator to respond within 35 days or cancel the parking ticket, and have also ruled that transgressions of the BPA Ltd code of practice are not relevant when assessing parking charges. would be amazing if it didn't happen so often. Its business as usual in POPLA fantasy land then!

Today's story begins when The Parking Prankster double dipped a car park in Yate back in March. Highview Parking duly sent him a parking charge notice, to which the Prankster replied.

Highview Parking tried to pretend that The Prankster had not appealed, but The Prankster sent them a series of stern letters and they eventually caved in, well after the 35 day limit, and issued a POPLA code.

As the POPLA website at the time clearly stated that all parking charges must be cancelled if the operator did not reply within 35 days, he therefore appealed on that reason alone.

Here is the screenshot from

Here is The Prankster's full appeal.
I appealed by first class post on 12/4/2013 and sent a second copy by first class post on 29/4/2013. The letter rejecting my appeal arrived on 7th June by second class post. POPLA state on their website On receipt of your representations, the operator must: [...] Within 35 days of receiving the representations, accept or reject it [...] If they have [...] failed to respond within 35 days, cancel the notice to keeper [...] Letters sent by first class post are deemed served on the second working day after posting. Accordingly, the deadline to reply ran out on 21st May, and no reply was received by that date. According to the rules posted by POPLA, the operator must therefore cancel the notice to keeper

Highview Parking did not answer the point. Although they did not carry out their usual rant against The Prankster, they also failed to state their case in any meaningful way.

After a relatively short wait of 93 days the assessor replied,turning down The Prankster's appeal.

The Prankster was initially flabbergasted, but that was because he had temporarily forgotten that POPLA are not really independent after all, but are in fact the BPA Ltd's lap dogs.Then it all started to make sense. A quick check on the POPLA web site showed they had conveniently rewritten history and made yet another of their silent policy reversals. Here is the new screenshot from

The text has now changed to say the operator should reply within the timescales, not must reply. All mention that the operator must cancel the parking charge if they have not decided within 35 days has been removed. Hmm.

The Prankster considers that the assessor was wrong for the following reasons. The initial statement on the POPLA web site was not taken from the BPA Ltd code of practice, which at the time stated the following:

22.8 You must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it. If at first you only acknowledge the challenge, you must accept or reject the challenge in
writing within 35 days of receiving it. We may require you to show that you are keeping to these targets.

It should be noted that the BPA Ltd CoP does not say and never did say that a parking charge must be cancelled if the operator does not make a decision within 35 days. The Prankster therefore considers that the statement on POPLA's web site is POPLA's own policy. POPLA must therefore follow its own guidelines; publishing something which a motorist is expected to rely on, and afterwards reneging on that commitment is not fair to motorists. The Prankster will therefore appeal to the Lead Adjudicator...again.

Meanwhile and ironically, POPLA's decision not to uphold the appeal will actually end up costing Highview Parking more money. Had the parking charge been put to bed, Highview could relax and breath a sigh of relief that it is all over. Now they will have to go to the tiresome bother of sending yet more letters out, which The Prankster will laugh at and poke fun at. Obviously, no money will be paid short of a court order.

This freedom of information request shows that Highview Parking have made no court filings since POFA 2012 went live. Will they man up and put in a claim against the Prankster, or will they show themselves to be snivelling cowards, happy to send bullying letters to motorists, but never having the balls to stand up and be counted and follow up on their empty threats? The Prankster knows which one he will bet on. Stay tuned to find out if Highview Parking have wasted £27 of their money and £100 of the BPA Ltd's by handing out a POPLA code, or whether they finally get their man. It seems this game of Parking Poker is not over yet.

They seek him here, they seek him there,
Those parkies seek him everywhere.
Has POPLA got him, is it true?
No, he double dipped, you'll have to sue.

Thursday, 12 September 2013

Assessor rules Lead Adjudicator's Witness Statement is Worthless Piece of Paper

In a snub to the POPLA Lead Adjudicator's authority, one of his assessors has ruled that the witness statement he produced is not acceptable.

The story begins when The Parking Prankster double dipped a motorway service station many moons ago. CP Plus sent a parking charge notice. The Prankster, considering that their systems must be malfunctioning as they did not detect the dual visit, could only think of one explanation. He sent the following appeal.
Dear Sir,
I have received the speculative invoice referred to above and I wish to invoke your appeal process.
As my car was not parked at this location between the times stated, I can only assume your records are incorrect.
Your base may have been invaded by Cybermen. Trust no-one, and nothing, especially computers. Try and hold out until the Doctor arrives. In view of the corruption of your data, I assume you will cancel your invoice.
Yours faithfully
The Parking Prankster
CP Plus, declining to accept the possibility that their systems were not foolproof, turned down the appeal and sent a POPLA code. The Prankster appealed briefly on the grounds that he wasn't there.

This is a first in last out error by the PPC. I visited the location twice on the day in question but their ANPR only detected the first in and last out. I have digital evidence confirming the vehicle was elsewhere during the period in question, and therefore require the PPC to supply proof backing up their claim that the vehicle was continuously there for the duration they claim; records detailing their camera coverage of all entrances and exits, together with installation details and site diagrams showing how they determine that coverage is complete and that vehicles cannot pass without their number being recorded; maintenance details including the date of last service of all equipment on site before the incident; the supplier of the software used to process recordings and the settings used on the software, together with all known bug reports from the manufacturer which could cause first in last out errors; procedures used during the PPC appeals process to determine whether a first in last out error has occurred, together with the names of employees who took part in processing the appeal, their training records and their case notes when processing my appeal I will be submitting my full reasons and evidence at a later date.

Many days passed. Ranger Services, on behalf of CP Plus, sent in their evidence.

The Prankster sent in his representations on the operators evidence, along with the contents of the Wikipedia page on ANPR.

POPLA appeal 1771073004 – representations on operator’s evidence.
The appellant makes the following comments on the Operator’s evidence pack:1.       The Operator’s evidence pack was received by email on 23/5/2013. Email headers as evidence of this have already been provided to POPLA in a separate communication and should be in the case notes.
2.       The appellant submits that the operator’s evidence has been delivered after the allowed time, as set out in the email from POPLA to the operator on 24th April. The appellant has asked for a copy of this email from POPLA, but has not yet received it.
3.       The appellant submits that the operator’s evidence pack be therefore struck from the case and the appeal upheld.
4.        The operator signed the evidence pack on page 1 as being delivered to the appellant on 15/5/2013, but it was not delivered until 23/5/2013. This is not an isolated incident; it has happened on each of the occasions the operator has delivered evidence packs to the appellant.
5.       The appellant therefore requests that the evidence be thrown out for consistent fraudulent misrepresentation of the appeals process by the operator
6.       The Operator for the case in question is CP Plus. However, the appellants evidence seems to been sent to, and handled by, a different party, Ranger Services.
7.       POPLA’s privacy policy, published on the web at states:
Any information you provide via this web site, or by any other means in connection with an appeal to the adjudicator will be processed by London Councils/POPLA contractors and retained. We are responsible for any personal data collected and retained as a result of using the site.With the exception of requirements expressed by parliament, information you provide us in connection with the registering and conduct of an appeal will not be shared with any other parties.8.       The appellant submits that this is a violation of the Data Protection Act, and POPLA’s own stated practices for his data to be submitted to Ranger Services. The appellant submits that he has a right for his data to be only processed by the operator raising the charge, and not by a random third party.
9.       The appellant therefore asks for the evidence to be thrown out and the case upheld.
10.   In the event that adjudicator decides the evidence pack is allowable, which the appellant strongly denies, then the appellant wishes to draw attention to the fact that the Operator makes no attempt to lay out or state a case in their Case Summary. There is no reference to any Parking Charge, any place, date or time of incident, any indication of whether the appellant is being pursued as driver or registered keeper. The case summary rather, appears to be unsubstantiated observations as to the Operator’s interpretation of the appellant’s character, and vague threats that action will be taken if the adjudicator’s decision is not to their liking. The case summary makes no references to any evidence contained later in the evidence pack. As neither the appellant nor the adjudicator should be expected to guess how the rest of the evidence applies to the case, the appellant asserts that the remainder of the evidence is not related to the case. The appellant hesitates to call the Operator evasive, deceitful and making a mockery of the POPLA appeal process, despite being greatly tempted to. He does however, note that the case summary bears no resemblance to a serious case summary. In view of the Operator’s failure to even attempt to make their case in any shape or form, the appellant requests that the appeal be therefore upheld.
11.   The appellant also wishes to state his belief that it is not the job of the adjudicator to root through the evidence to find the best possible case for the Operator. If the Operator is not able to clearly and succinctly present their own case, then perhaps they are in the wrong business.
12.   The appellant also wishes to state that he would not believe it to be a fair adjudication process if the first time he finds a clear statement of the case against him is in the adjudicator’s decision. He believes that a fair appeal process would allow him to see the case presented against him before the appeal is adjudicated so that he has the opportunity to argue against it.
13.   In the event that the adjudicator finds there is a case made by the Operator, which the appellant strongly denies, and also that the remainder of the evidence pack is related to the case, which the appellant also questions, the appellant wishes to state that the operator does not make it clear whether he is treating the appellant as the driver or the registered keeper. As there are different requirements the operator must fulfill in each of these circumstances, the appellant argues that the operator cannot have the best of both worlds; the Operator must clearly state how the appellant is being pursued, and not leave it up to the adjudicator to decide which makes the best case. The appellant therefore asks the adjudicator to uphold the appeal.
14.   Although the appellant admits to visiting the site twice, he prefers to exercise his right to remain silent as to who the driver of the vehicle was on each occasion.
15.   In view of the fact that Operator does not state whether they are pursuing the appellant as driver or registered keeper, the appellant asks the adjudicator, if they have not already dismissed the case, to pursue it as if the Operator were pursuing the driver. The basis for this, although flimsy, is that the only clue the operator gives is to mention the word ‘driver’ more than the words ‘registered keeper’ in their case summary.
16.   In view of the fact that the operator offers no evidence that the appellant is the driver, the appellant asks for the appeal to be upheld.
17.   The appellant does not believe any contract has been entered into, whether actual or implied, by signed paper contract, verbally agreed, by signage or any other means. The Operator has made no clear statement in their case notes to the effect that a contract has been entered into with the appellant, or how this has come about. The appellant therefore requests that the appeal be upheld.
18.   In the event that the adjudicator assumes a contract has been made by signage, which the appellant strongly denies, the appellant wishes to draw attention to the map provided by the Operator in their evidence pack.  The entrance sign, labeled (1) on the diagram, is on the right hand entrance road. There is no entrance signage on the left hand road. It is therefore possible to enter the car park by the left hand road and immediately turn left to park in the area by the trees without encountering any further signs. This is before signs (3), (5), (6). The operator’s signage is therefore inadequately positioned for the purposes of forming a contract. The appellant therefore requests that the appeal be upheld.
19.   If the adjudicator decides that a contract has been made by signage, which the appellant strongly denies, the appellant wishes to point out that none of the signs photographed in section F of the operator evidence pack are cross referenced to the map in section F, that the writing is too small to read, and that there is no date provided as to when these pictures are taken or date given when the operator last checked the signs were still in position. The appellant therefore questions their usefulness and applicability to the case.
20.   The appellant also wished to point out that the signage is unreadable in the key given on the map in section F. The appellant therefore questions its usefulness and applicability to the case.
21.   The appellant also wished to point out that it is impossible to cross reference the two example signs given in section B with the map in section F. The first could be (1) (2) or (3). The second could be (4) or (7). They could also be something else entirely. They could therefore be situated in several different possible locations in the car park, and the operator has not demonstrated that they will be encountered while parking.
22.   The appellant therefore states that the Operator has not demonstrated that the signage is adequate or that any rules/conditions for parking apply and asks for the appeal to be upheld.
23.   The British Parking Association lays out requirements for mandatory entrance signs in Appendix B of its code of practice. The Operator has neither indicated which its entrance signs are, nor shown that any signs at all in the evidence pack meet the requirements as to:1                        Overall design2                        Standard wording3                        Text size for group 1 and group 2 text4                        Either sign illumination or reflective material composition
24.   The Operator has also not shown that it has any special dispensation from the BPA to use non-standard signage, or shown any other reasons why it might be allowed to use non-standard signage.
25.   The appellant therefore states that the Operator has not demonstrated that the signage is adequate and asks for the appeal to be upheld.
26.   The appellant wishes to state the vehicle visited the car park twice on the day in question, and the photographs show only the first arrival and last departure of the vehicle. CP Plus’s ANPR system has missed the other departure and arrival. The vehicle was only present for an estimated total duration during both visits of less than one hour.
27.   As the appellant denies that the vehicle was parked there continuously during the period in question, the burden of proof falls on CP Plus to provide evidence to the contrary. As CP Plus has not produced such proof, such as footage of the vehicle parked at various times, the appellant asks that the appeal be upheld.
28.   The appellant requested in the initial POPLA submission that the Operator supply various proofs backing up their claim that the vehicle was continuously there for the duration they claim. This proof should comprise at least the following;
28.1                         records detailing their ANPR camera coverage of all entrances and exits, together with installation details and site diagrams showing how they determine that coverage is complete and that vehicles cannot pass without their number being recorded;
28.2                        maintenance details including the date of last service of all equipment on site before the incident;
28.3                        the make, version and supplier of the software used to process recordings and the settings used on the software, together with all known bug reports from the manufacturer which could cause first in last out errors;
28.4                        procedures used during the PPC appeals process to determine whether a first in last out error has occurred
28.5                        the names of employees who took part in processing the appeal, their training records and their case notes when processing my appeal.
29.   None of these were supplied. The appellant wished to state therefore that he believes:
29.1                        The ANPR coverage is not complete and that it is therefore possible to drive vehicles in and out of the location without their numbers being recorded
29.2                        The ANPR is defective and has not been installed, serviced or used in line with manufacturer’s requirements.
29.3                        The ANPR software is defective. The Operator is running an old version with bugs and errors. The operator is using incorrect software settings which allow first-in last–out errors to go undetected.
29.4                        The Operator did not follow their own process to determine if first-in last-out errors occur
29.5                        The training of the operator’s personnel who processed the appeal was defective
For any or all of these reasons the appellant argues that the operator has not properly addressed reasons why a first-in last-out error has not occurred and therefore requests the appeal is upheld.30.   The Operator states in the case summary they have made ‘full data verification checks to ensure there was no further vehicle records’. The appellant submits that without further clarification this statement should be ignored. Searching databases is a technical skill and must be done in the correct way. It is easy for a novice to make an unintended error without realizing it. Without full statements of the database structure, the exact queries used, and the training and qualifications of the personnel querying the database, the operator’s statement does not satisfy the requirement that they have done a proper search of a database.
31.   The appellant draw the adjudicator’s attention to the Wikipedia page on ANPR, submitted as evidence by the appellant, and in particular, the sections headed  ‘5 Algorithms’ and ‘6. Difficulties’.  These clearly show that many technical software problems need to be solved before a vehicle number can be captured. Six different algorithms need to be created by programmers, and these are all technically challenging. Seven difficulties are also listed.  This illustrates that there are many problems, and therefore areas of potential failure, which must be overcome before a number can even make its way into a database.
32.   The appellant therefore submits that for the operator to only check their database is not a sufficient proof that a first-in last-out error did not occur. The number will only appear in the database at the end of a long and complicated series of procedures any of which may go wrong. The operator needs to address the fact that a problem can occur, and in fact is most likely to occur, because of problem with any of the six algorithms and seven difficulties. As they have not done this, or shown they have used any other methods to address these problems, the appellant requests that the appeal be upheld.

Many more days passed.

The Prankster, having seen the POPLA Lead Adjudicator's template witness statement, decided it was time to update his appeal. At this point in time, he had sent in no photographs of his car elsewhere at the time of the alleged parking event and indeed in a previous appeal POPLA had ruled his CCTV evidence of his car parked outside his house inadmissible. this was because they could not process industry standard CCTV formatted data.

The Prankster therefore visited an IT Specialist he knew and showed him the photographic evidence that the vehicle was elsewhere at the time. The IT Specialist considered that the evidence was tamper proof. The Prankster took the Lead Adjudicator's template witness statement and modified it slightly to suit the situation and the IT Specialist duly signed. The Prankster updated his POPLA appeal and waited.

I wish to submit the following new evidence for case 1771073004. Please confirm that this evidence has been added to the case notes.
The vehicle visited the location twice on the day in question, and this is therefore a first -in last-out error by the operator. The vehicle was only present for a short time during both stays and did not therefore contravene the parking conditions.
POPLA case 8511283209 had the appeal refused by POPLA for a similar first-in last-out error because no additional evidence was submitted by myself.
POPLA case 2920513005 established that POPLA is currently unable to accept evidence in CCTV format. The appellant has written twice to the Lead Adjudicator and once to London Councils to enquire how CCTV evidence can be presented but has received no reply.
The appellant therefore wishes to take the step of submitting a witness statement (enclosed) confirming that the witness has seen photographic evidence that the vehicle was elsewhere during the time of the alleged contravention.
The Lead Adjudicator, in his May newsletter (enclosed), has indicated that witness statements are sufficient evidence in similar situations ('Contracts with Landowners'). The appellant has taken the sample witness statement provided by the Lead Adjudicator in the May newsletter (enclosed) and adapted it to the situation.
As the appellant has provided evidence the vehicle was elsewhere he asks the appeal be upheld.

Many days passed.

Many more days passed.

Finally, 100 days after it was due to be assessed and 135 days after first submitting to POPLA, the appeal was processed, and The Prankster received the following reply.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 437130327012 arising out of the presence at Moto Leigh Delamere West, on 27 March 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx for exceeding the free parking period.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked for longer than the maximum free stay of 2 hours and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.
It is the Appellant’s case that he went to the site on two occasions on that day and the Operator has captured his first time in and last time out.
I have reviewed all of the evidence and a number of points have been raised by the Appellant and I will go through the most pertinent issues. Firstly, he has raised the fact that he is unsure if the Operator is pursuing him as the registered keeper or the driver. I am satisfied that the Operator sent a notice to keeper to the Appellant and he failed to respond or to object if he was not the driver. The Appellant has not disputed that he was the keeper.
Secondly, the Appellant states that he went to the site on two occasions and the Operator has captured the first in and last out. The Operator has stated that they checked their systems and are unable to find a record of the Appellant’s vehicle entering the site on two occasions as claimed by the Appellant.
Thirdly, the Appellant has provided a witness statement from a xxxx xxxxx, stating that he has seen photographic images that the Appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere on the day of the breach. The Appellant has failed to state where his vehicle was located and has not provided the photographs.
Fourthly, the Appellant has raised a number of other points such as cyber men invading the Operator, I do not feel these are relevant to this appeal and will not determine them.
Having considered all of the evidence and submissions put forward, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions of parking would have been visible to the Appellant from the signage at the site and these made it clear that parking was free for 2 hours and parking charges apply thereafter. On balance, I find that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in excess of the 2 hour free parking period and he did not pay for parking thereafter, as a result, a breach of the terms and conditions of parking occurred. The onus is on the Appellant to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of parking and on this occasion he did not do so.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.
Nozir Uddin

Motorists now have a clear statement from a POPLA assessor that the Lead Adjudicator's witness statement is unfit for purpose and will not be accepted. If an alternative document exists (in The Prankster's case a photograph, or in the parking company's case a contract) then it must be produced and in such circumstances the witness statement becomes a worthless piece of paper.

The Prankster makes his POPLA case numbers and the transcript of the assessor available for anyone to use as they wish. He suggests the following is added to any appeal where a witness statement may be used by the parking company.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004 the assessor ruled that a witness statement was not valid. This witness statement, based on the template provided by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator, concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. This is exactly analogous to the current case if the operator produces a witness statement regarding contract documents between he operator and the landowner; the alleged contract is a document which the operator could produce (if it exists) but chooses not to. I request therefore that POPLA is consistent in its processes and also rules any witness statement produced by the operator invalid.

The Prankster is considering appealing to the Lead Adjudicator about the case. If he does so, he will not appeal on the basis of the witness statement but on other points.

Of course, this leaves The Prankster with a POPLA case on record against him. The Prankster is happy with this situation. CP Plus have shown as much inclination to take motorists to court as the Californian porn industry has to wearing condoms*.  The Prankster already has one complaint in with the Credit Services Association against CP Plus's debt collectors for threatening court action when they know they will never do this, and is happy to add another.

Lastly, The Prankster hopes there is no comeback on the assessor for bravely and brazenly throwing the Lead Adjudicator's carefully crafted witness statement back in his face.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

* The Prankster only knows this through reading newspapers. He has not yet been asked to appear in a Californian porn movie.

Sunday, 8 September 2013

In out, in out, shake it all about (2)

Apparently ParkingEye really have been given the boot from The Range, St Helen's, after all.

The Prankster first blogged about this here...

Then noted he might be wrong here...

Now a pepipoo post bought to his attention by DBC suggests that he was right after all.

Post #11 on the thread notes that CARE Parking have now taken over the site; this does not seem to be an improvement.

The new incumbents have changed the car park rules, but have not given any notice period or warning of the change, and are now penalising motorists for 'leaving the site'.

Perhaps ParkingEye were given the boot for this reason, and not because they are overly aggressive, have an incompetent legal department, don't believe in obeying BPA Ltd signage requirements or use systems that do not work properly. ParkingEye only provide camera enforcement and do not provide 'bodies on the ground', so can never enforce 'leaving the site' regulations. CARE Parking have stepped in to fill the gap.

The Prankster notes that the new operators have generated quantities of irate customers at The Range, and that the customer service counter has been left to sort this out as the parking operators unpaid front line.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

In out, in out, shake it all about (1)

The FoI request for the BPA Ltd AOS minutes that was pulled from the website has now reappeared.

The Prankster first blogged about this here.

Then he noted they had been removed...

...and now they are back.

Apparently they were removed because the redaction had been done in an amateurish way and anyone with IT skills* could completely unredact the document. Oopsie.

This of course left the DVLA with something of a dilemma. They redacted the information because they ruled that it was personal. Having unwittingly released it anyway, they were now in breach of the data protection act. In a typical example of absurd logic they decided to rectify the situation by now publishing the complete unredacted document including all personal information. They then ruled that as they had retrospectively decided that all information could be published, no data breach had occurred and they did not need to report themselves to the ICO.


The Prankster's mind is now boggled.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

* To the level of cut and paste

Saturday, 7 September 2013

BPA Ltd retain control over POPLA web site

Evidence that further weakens POPLA's claim to be independent has emerged following the completion of an FoI request.

The Parking Prankster had previously run a campaign to urge POPLA to update their web site to include more reasons motorists could use to appeal. POPLA resisted this - now we know why. POPLA are not allowed to update their own web site; content has to be approved by British Parking Association (BPA) Ltd.

If any further proof was needed that the BPA Ltd only have the interests of their members at heart, and do not care a fig about the motorist, then a quick read of the bad-tempered email exchange between the BPA Ltd and the Department for Transport (DfT) will dispel all doubts.

Photograph: Patrick Troy, Chief Executive, BPA Ltd. The man responsible 
for misleading the government over savings POFA 2012 could achieve and
blocking the government from making changes to POPLA for the benefit of 

The email exchange clearly shows the DfT recognise that the BPA Ltd have complete control over the POPLA website. The DfT start by pointing out the BPA Ltd have used different wording than agreed, including barring motorists from claiming the fees are excessive, that signage problems are not relevant and that mitigating circumstances never apply.

They also point out the code of practice (CoP) is misleading in that the BPA Ltd tell parking operators that the keeper can be pursued if the driver refuses to pay. Although the DfT redact their legal advice, it obviously concerns the wording used by the BPA Ltd in the CoP.

The BPA Ltd make small changes, changing the web site a little. They then drag their feet, refusing to change the web site any more. The DfT even consider removing the BPA Ltd's Accredited Trade Association (ATA) status in an effort to force them to change the site.The email exchange shows that the BPA Ltd do not want to encourage more appeals. Finally, after much government pressure, the BPA Ltd eventually make the changes.

Here are some selected excerpts.

Anthony Boucher, Deputy Director, Transport Division, DfT to Norman Baker MP, pointing out BPA Ltd's prevarication.
Motorists are not being given clear guidance about the grounds on which they can appeal if they receive a parking ticket when they park on private land. Officials have had some success in pushing the British Parking Association (BPA) to make the necessary changes, but the BPA are prevaricating on some aspects, and a letter from you may be needed. There is also a problem with the revised BPA Code of Practice which gives potentially misleading advice to their members about keeper liability.

DfT on BPA Ltd admitting the reasons on the website are limited to prevent appeals
they are unwilling to make changes to the website so that motorists know that they can appeal if they believe the charge was excessive or disproportionate. Their reasoning is that motorists might see any charge as excessive and as a result the appeals service would be flooded with appeals
DfT official to Anthony Boucher regarding BPA Ltd failure to co-operate
This question is linked to the consideration of what action we advise Ministers to take if BPA/POPLA continue to prevaricate or refuse outright to make the changes we require. On the latter is there a view on options, particularly on whether we should go so far as to recommend to Ministers that they could consider a general suspension on ATA member access to DVLA data if the changes aren't made? I don't think advice on this needs to go in this submission but we need to consider the options and what is possible if BPA choose not to co-operate

It was therefore fairly cheeky of the Lead Adjudicator to state in his annual report:
The appeal form notes and the website suggests situations which might fall within particular grounds but we, and the Department for Transport, were aware that too many suggestions as to what is not within a particular ground, may have the unintended consequence of perhaps putting off a motorist with a genuine case
It is clear from the email exchange that the BPA Ltd, and by association POPLA, would far prefer to put motorists off appealing than to encourage them. After all, each appeal costs the BPA Ltd around £120 and only £27 of this cost is recoverable from their members. As far as The Prankster can see from the information provided in the FoI request, the statement by the Lead Examiner has no basis  in fact and appears to be completely opposite to the true picture.

The Prankster has had no success so far at persuading POPLA to update their reasons to appeal. He had asked them to add the reasons which have been successful for motorists so far, including requiring the operator to produce a break down of their pre-estimate of loss and show written authorisation from the landowner they can issue charges and pursue to court.

Now he knows why they have flatly refused; their paymasters the BPA Ltd have been pulling the strings all along.

In a reply to The Prankster, Richard Reeve, the Tribunal Manger for POPLA, gave this reason for not updating the web site:
"As POPLA is an independent body, it would not be appropriate for it to advertise successful appeal reasons"
The Prankster considers that the exact opposite applies. As POPLA wishes to be thought of as an independent body (despite the evidence stacking up against this), then it would be entirely appropriate for it to publish valid reasons to appeal.

The Prankster also asked for a register of appeal results to be published, similar to the way PATAS does. Mr Reeve replied.
"There is no statutory requirement for POPLA to maintain a register."
The Prankster considers this is ducking the question. Moreover, Mr Reeve is quite happy to quote PATAS when it suits him. When the Prankster complained that the operators get 28 days to consider the motorist's evidence, but the motorists only gets 7 days to consider the operator's (which may consist of 40 pages or more) Mr Reeve stated:
It should be pointed out that in the statutory tribunals, the minimum is 5 days.
The Prankster notes that the government consider that appealing a parking charge because the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is a valid appeal reason.

Extracts from letter to the BPA Ltd from Norman Baker MP
As you know we exchanged a number of letters on what the eligible grounds for appeal should be in the run-up to 1 October, and agreed among other things that POPLA would be able to:
 consider whether or not a parking charge was based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or whether it contained an element of non-enforceable penalty;
I believe failure to act on these issues would seriously undermine the intended safeguards on reasonable behaviour by parking operators that I clearly set as a condition of agreeing to introduce the provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. I would therefore be grateful for your confirmation that you will ensure that the Code of Practice and the grounds of appeal to POPLA are amended forthwith to reflect that agreement.
The Lead Adjudicator also thinks this is a valid appeal reason. Many appeals have been upheld on this basis by his staff, and he explicitly mentions it in his secret May newsletter to help parking companies:
Genuine pre-estimate of loss

If the motorist claims that the parking charge is ‘disproportionate’ or similar, or quotes the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 or other legislative provisions, then the operator must, as always, address the issue. If they do not then, as with any issue not addressed, the appeal is likely to be allowed.

The amount sought as the parking charge may be a term of the contract, rather than a sum for breach of it. If this is the case then reference to the signage may be sufficient. Some signs make it very clear, for example: ‘The tariff for overstaying or parking outside the bay markings is £100’ or ‘This is a Blue Badge bay. You may park here without a Blue Badge but if you do the charge is £100’.

If the signage appears effectively to indicate that the amount is damages then, where the issue is raised, the operator must clearly state that it is indeed a genuine pre-estimate of loss, always assuming that it is.
If, in whatever way, a motorist actually explains why they think the amount of the parking charge is not a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’, which is not common, then the operator may be able to deal with it by briefly explaining what it is. If nothing is said then the issue has not been dealt with.

Why then is this valid appeal category not mentioned on the POPLA web site? The real reason is because the BPA Ltd do not want it there. The reason they don't want it? All appeals where the parking company claim breach of contract will currently lose at POPLA if this appeal reason is quoted.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

ParkingEye back at the Range, St Helen's?

A different post on Pepipoo states that ParkingEye are only temporarily gone from the Range, St Helen's.

Apparently the cameras are only down while the electrics to the new McDonald's are connected.

Monday, 2 September 2013

CP Plus disregard Smart Parking. Quadruple dipping stand-off.

In the most exciting game of parking poker to date, CP Plus have decided to disregard Smart Parking, as they have no relationship with that company.

This follows their decision to disregard The Parking Prankster's appeal points, ruling that he never appealed.

CP Plus are raising the art of disregarding to new levels.

This arose when The Parking Prankster decided to sent CP Plus some pictures taken of his vehicle by Smart Parking. Co-incidentally, the time these pictures were taken were during the time CP Plus allege The Prankster was parked in a different car park. Obviously The Prankster must have quadruple dipped that day.

Here is the notice from CP Plus.

And here is the one from Smart Parking.

The Prankster considers he could not have been at MOTO Leigh Delamere West between 12:52 and 17:40 if he was photographed arriving at ASDA Bedminster at 13:58.

CP Plus thought otherwise, ruling that as they have no relationship with Smart Parking they have disregarded the document. The Prankster wonders if that will be a new valid POPLA defence; if motorists have no relationship with the parking company, they can from now on disregard any document sent to them.

The state of play is now getting quite difficult to keep track of. The Prankster has complaints in with the BPA Ltd, the Credit Services Association and has raised his bid to Debt Recovery Plus, pointing them in the direction of the practice directions for pre-court actions. Meanwhile, CP Plus are keeping a poker face.

More when it happens!

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Sunday, 1 September 2013

ParkingEye removed from The Range, St Helen's

ParkingEye have apparently been given the push from The Range, St Helen's, according to this post here.

A manager at Tesco stated that the landowner had ordered ParkingEye to remove all their equipment.

ParkingEye are one of the most aggressive of the parking companies, using bullying tactics, writing over the top legal letters, pretending that large costs will apply and failing to abide by the court's Practice Directives, They pursue people to court when they are disabled, breastfeeding, broken down in the car park, unable to pay due to broken machines. Hardly any of their car parks have entrance signs which comply with the BPA Ltd code of practice, they ignore the CoP as it suits them, attempting to force the BPA Ltd to change the rules when they do not like them. They selectively misquote documents at court and use dodgy witness statements without fully identifying the witness or proving they are suitably qualified. Their legal department is in disarray, sending letters to the wrong people, failing to send out letters at all, providing details of one case to another, and deciding not to cancel court cases when they have settled or when the landowner has asked them to cancel the ticket.

The Parking Prankster has no idea whether any of these reasons are why the boot was applied, but if anyone knows would be happy to clarify.