Tuesday, 19 November 2013

WY Parking. Why? Why? Why?

Why would the BPA Ltd ever let them join?

The simple answer is that the BPA does not have robust procedures in place to vet new members. Their policy seems to be, collect the loot first and check afterwards.

The BPA's rivals, The Independent Parking Committee, have far more stringent requirements and are fast becoming the industry leader in terms of driving standards forward. The BPA, meanwhile, seem happy to backpedal, revising their code of standards to accommodate their biggest customers like ParkingEye.

ParkingEye are known to issue so many wrong tickets they have to cancel around 55% on appeal. Because of this their appeal department is overwhelmed. They could not cope with the 35 day deadline for dealing with appeals and so got the BPA to rewrite the code of practice.

Meanwhile, back to WY Parking...

Their signs state the charge is £60.
The windscreen letter states the charge is £90, reducing to £40 and increasing to £149.
The appeal rejection states the charge is £90, currently reduced to £40 and increases to £190.

The IPC would simply not let them get away with this because wording on all signage and correspondence is vetted before enforcement action can take place. They also check that contracts are in place with the landowner and that signage plans are acceptable.

The BPA appear to be happy for any shyster to rock up with a few signs and a sheaf of window stickers.

The set of pictures indicate a large number of breaches of the BPA code of conduct. Goodness knows what other breaches lurk beneath the surface. Luckily for WY parking they have joined the one ATA that do not appear to care if their members behave shoddily as long as they pay their subscriptions.

The Prankster will check the BPA list of sanction points for November when they become available, but sadly does not expect to see WY parking's transgressions listed.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

1 comment:

  1. Sign contains a company number but not the company name i.e. with the word "Limited" or "Ltd" which it really ought to for transparency.