Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Dr Julian Lewis MP gets to the heart of the matter. Why are the DVLA not taking action against ParkingEye?

The :Parking Prankster has today received a copy of a letter from Dr Julian Lewis MP to Stephen Hammond MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Transport.

Dr Lewis does not beat about the bush and gets straight to the heart of the matter. ParkingEye are repeatedly flouting the BPA Ltd code of practice; the BPA couldn't care less; the DVLA are turning a blind eye to the BPA Ltd's failure to take enforcement action.

The Prankster will keep an eye on matters.

Meanwhile, if you are currently being taken to court by ParkingEye, The Prankster suggests you think about filing this letter as part of your evidence; it clearly shows that the DfT have been asked to take action over ParkingEye due to their repeated flouting of the codes of practice.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Mr P, you have missed a redaction.....

  2. Mr PP is there a better quality picture as I would gladly use this in my forth coming court case , thank you Unclemicky

    1. Try right-click, save image. That is the best quality I have.

    2. I have now been sent a better quality copy. Enjoy!

  3. I've read the BPA Code of Practice cover to cover, and Parking Eye's conformity seems to have more holes in it than a colander.

    Love 10.3 "Continuous Professional Development." Would be interesting to see how the "Professionals" in the organisation have demonstrated this to there professional bodies.

  4. You've surpassed yourself with today's posts, PP.
    Brilliant work - thankyou.
    Posted heads-up Thread on mse earlier today and am feeding it in to other parking threads there.
    These 2 posts have got me all aglow - really want PE to take me to Court now.

    1. Go for it MsAmpersand, the court process was very fair. Go in telling the truth, understand your defence, (there's plenty of help out there), and one of two things will happen-you'll lose (hopefully not), or, (it's likely) you'll win. My mrs was very nervous, one night it suddenly "clicked." A couple of days later, over a pinot and a good meal, it "clicked" for her :-) Everything was uphill from that point. I used to love standing up to the bullies in the playground, I got the odd bloody nose, but it was worth it in the end run :-)

  5. The big problem with all the behind the scenes stuff from MP's etc is that they aren't shouting it loud enough and to the right people.

    If someone pokes me in the ribs and tells me what an ar$ehole I am, I don't do a personal evaluation. I stand my ground and fight my corner.
    If you told my wife I was an ar$ehole and gave her a good reason for saying it then I'd be in deep $hit. She'd be all over me.

    So say what you want avbout the DVLA to the DVLA or the BPA to the BPA they won't agree. All you get back are platitudes and finger waving at others.

    This needs to be addressed by those in the higher echelons of the food chain.
    POPLA is playing a useful part but does still have its paymasters in mind when it can. It's not unusual for them to back off on insisting action from the BPA, or to pass on particular complaints.

    I would suggest that they do have a responsibility though. They should be meeting with the BPA and DVLA on regular occasions where discussions of compliance are at the top of the agenda. If the matter of things like POPLA appeals being regularly won on the basis of not a true estimate of costs then all the PPC's should be made to decalre a genuine acceptabel estimate up-front and which has actual merit. In the case of an overstay in a car park which costs a fiver an hour, that estimate can only really be at that charged amount of a fiver an hour.

    What we are seeing here isn't the start of a process of making a civil process legally acceptable, we are more likely seeing the start to the end of the whole charade. ParkingEye are just speeding the process up as inevitably someone with a fair amount of cash to spare will get through to a judicial review.

  6. I agree with the above. All the main protagonists: POPLA, BPA, DVLA are keeping the current shambolic fudge going. Incidentally, we recently lost a POPLA appeal of the planks of which was pre-estimate of loss....and we strongly believe that this was because we had caught POPLA out not adhering to its own procedure.
    The number of breaches of the BPA code reported by victims of the parking companies, is much higher than the number acknowledged by POPLA for example. That shouldn't be so. POPLA needs abolishing, the BPA needs stripping of any powers to accredit parking companies. A totally independent arbitration system needs to be set up.

  7. It's a slow slow process, but we are gradually getting there. This letter is more important than anyone can imagine. Well done to Parky and all concerned. Parking Eye are shaking in their boots all right.

  8. The purchase of ParkingEye was a huge mistake. If I was a shareholder I'd be asking some very pertinent questions right now.

    Actually, it's my bet that a lot of the shareholders of Capita have been done for parking offences themselves. Ironic or what.........