Printfriendly

Monday, 13 April 2015

BPA terminates membership of ANPR Limited

The BPA has issued the following press release.

BPA terminates membership of ANPR Limited
The British Parking Association (BPA) has terminated the membership of ANPR Limited with immediate effect.

Following investigations arising from complaints by motorists, BPA Officers awarded 16 Sanction Points covering multiple Code of Practice breaches including failing to follow agreed procedures in handling motorist appeals and failing to live up to BPA customer service requirements.

If an operator receives 12 or more Sanction Points in a 12-month period, their case is referred to the BPA Professional Conduct Panel who will review all the evidence.  In this instance the panel concluded that the membership of ANPR Ltd should be terminated.  This termination means that ANPR Limited's ability to request vehicle keeper details from the DVLA will cease.

The BPA is committed to encouraging and developing the highest standards of professional conduct and ethics within its membership. The BPA Code of Professional Conduct sets out the standards expected of those working in the profession and all BPA members commit to the code when they join the association. Unfortunately, ANPR Limited was unable to meet these standards.

The company must remove all references to the BPA and the Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) from all its business transactions, including signage in car parks they manage.

ANPR Comment

The ANPR news page gives some insight into the feud between ANPR Ltd and the BPA.



Prankster Note

As ANPR Ltd refused to put the BPA logo on their signage, this part of 'removing references' will be relatively easy.

The Prankster has assisted many motorists who fell foul of ANPR's unusual interpretation of BPA customer service requirements. He is continuing to assist motorists who are still being pursued by ANPR Ltd.

The Prankster understands Preston Council may have a number of car parks managed by ANPR and wonders what the council will do now there is no apparent way to manage them.

ANPR Ltd will presumably now attempt to obtain keeper details on behalf of landowners, using the 'Proserve' 'trespass' model. This entire model comes under judicial review on (apparently) 6 May 2015. However, while Proserve attempt to demonstrate a landowner loss by invoicing the landowner, ANPR Ltd do not do this, which does seem, in the absence of other information, that they are doomed to fail.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


15 comments:

  1. there new website is up and running today , boasting"ANPR Ltd. is UKAS ISO 9001 accredited and registered with the ICO (Information Commissioners Office).

    Should any motorist fail to heed the warnings, as members of the BPA Approved Operators Scheme we can request from the DVLA the vehicles registered keeper raising enforcement from 45% to 80%.

    No one else can offer the expertise, the deterrent and the service like ANPR Ltd. So may I suggest you start protecting your valuable parking areas with the most effective alternative" to wheel clamping available"

    and yes , at least 6 car parks in Preston are still managed by them, they are still issuing tickets on cars as late as last Friday

    ReplyDelete
  2. Regarding Preston CC - whose motto is "Ignoring incompetence since 2007". Here is a list of the car parks

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/260415/response/639033/attach/6/FOIR4551%20Preston%20Borough%20Council%20Redacted.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  3. The BPA Ltd. should be informed that ANPR are still claiming to be members of the AOS.

    ReplyDelete

  4. Thank you for your e-mail.



    We do allow operators some time to remove our logos from their paperwork, signage and website. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention which we will monitor.



    Kind regards,



    AOS Investigations Team

    ReplyDelete
  5. Surely they will just join the IPC to retain DVLA access? Business as usual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In theory they cannot join immediately the IPC as the DVLA insisted that sanction points be carried over from one organisation to the other.

      Delete
    2. I think the DVLA also insisted that the "Independent Appeals System" scam which the IPC is offering needs to be unbiased and fair. And look what happened with that ;)

      Delete
  6. can they join the IPC with 16 outstanding points against them by the BPA?

    as posted on pepipoo

    "The "News" section of his website has been just one long whine since (presumably) he realised his BPA membership was hanging by a thread: http://www.anpr-ltd.com/news.php

    On 1st April he had this to say:

    Ironically our membership was due to expire in March and we made it blatantly clear we will not be renewing our £5,000 membership.

    So the BPA has perhaps been quite clever. If Trev was going anyway it's a perfect time to tot up the sanction points, kick Trev out and make sure he goes with enough sanction points to prevent him joining the IPC.

    If Trev's contingency plan was to join the IPC I fear he may be disappointed. As far as I can see the only option remaining for him is to go "rogue" like Proserve, and to pray that Duffserve wins his judicial review against the DVLA's decision to deny data access.

    His whine on 4th December suggests this may be exactly what he has in mind:

    Our relationship with the BPA has been somewhat strained over the last year and reached breaking point and just like many others will no longer endure their authoritarianism. Reassuringly we have always used trespass to access the DVLA manually using FormV888/2 as opposed to the electron link. We have never relied upon the Protection of freedoms act 2012 to rely on keeper liability. Once you can prove trespass the registered keeper is always responsible, after all its their vehicle and the driver is irrelevant.

    A typically creative interpretation of the law of tort! Proserve might occasionally get away with claiming that the driver is the keeper's agent when dealing with what is clearly a commercial vehicle (hence the keeper being liable for any trespass), but Clever Trevor has no chance of making that stick for a trespass claim with respect to a private vehicle! He might just as well claim that if I borrow my mate's jacket and trespass whilst wearing it then my mate is liable!

    Leaving aside, of course, the simple fact that only the landowner has a claim for trespass! Even Duffnasty undertstands this (despite having been in the unfortunate and illegal habit of signing claim forms on the landowner's behalf)! Duffnasty has, to some extent, been successful in persuading his handful of large corporate clients to press ahead with court cases, but I can't see Trev's legions of residential management company clients and so forth being remotely interested in taking a similar line.

    note the line " We have never relied upon the Protection of freedoms act 2012 to rely on keeper liability." , I thought you were obliged to conform to the BPA to be a member?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been in a dispute with ANPR since November and an appeal is currently lodged with POPLA. It's all being discussed here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=95189

      I complained to the BPA and the AOS Investigations Team looked into the matter because ANPR were continuing to send demand letters and "draft court papers" even after the POPLA appeal was lodged. Then I find out today that ANPR's BPA membership has been cancelled. Was my complaint the final nail in the coffin for them, Alan?

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. yours was one of many , they racket up 16 points , which must be multiple offences

    ReplyDelete
  9. Don't be misled the the characterisation of Trevor Whitehouse & his gang as a charming bunch of incompetents. They have been defrauding the unwary for years with their lies, bullying & threats. There is nothing charming about their antics they are just as deeply corrupt & unpleasant as all the other members of the private parking "industry" who operate the same business model.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wonder if there is a condition to their contract with the council that requires them to be a member of an AOS though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well "trev" tells em is is , says so on his website "dunnit"

      Delete