Thursday, 2 April 2015

Beavis result out? BPA issue press release welcoming Court of Appeal decision

The British Parking Association have issued the following press release regarding the Beavis case.

The British Parking Association (BPA) welcomes the Court of Appeal decision which provided much needed clarity on the issue of private parking charges. The judgement sets a precedent as it now becomes case law and will be referred to by other Courts in matters of a similar nature.

One aspect of the BPA’s work is self-regulating the management of parking on private land. We have been collaborating with Government on behalf of the entire parking sector and in the interests of consumers since 2007 when we launched our Approved Operators Scheme (AOS) which became the model for Accredited Trade Associations (ATA).

Patrick Troy, Chief Executive of the BPA said: “Clarity is good, but what would be better is a single standard setting body with an independent scrutiny board, which will deliver a single code of practice and a single independent appeals service for consumers. The BPA supports competition but not at the expense of standards, which encourages a race to the bottom, or in confusing the motorist by offering different appeals services of varying quality.

By establishing POPLA in 2012, by agreement with Government, the BPA led the way in delivering independent redress for the consumer. The Government is confusing matters by allowing proliferation of standard setting and appeals bodies.

The BPA recently appointed The Ombudsman Services to succeed London Councils as the service provider for POPLA from 1st October 2015. The Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals (ISPA) will continue to scrutinise POPLA to ensure that the service they deliver continues to be independent and be seen to be independent. Since POPLA’s launch by the BPA on October 1st 2012, over 60,000 appeals have been considered. There has not been one instance where a BPA operator has refused to accept a POPLA decision.

[Patrick Troy, continued: “We are calling on Government to act now and do the right thing for motorists and the entire parking sector. Continuing with multiple codes of practice, multiple appeal services, and variable auditing and sanctions regimes is unfair and confusing for motorists and businesses alike.”]

Prankster Note

Although the press release seems to imply the BPA know the decision on the Beavis case, it provides no useful information. On the other hand, with Patrick Troy involved, that might just be par for the course.

The other alternative is that someone pressed the release button too early.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. One of the things that occurred to me when I read that ANPR Ltd. had left the BPA and knowing the result of Beavis was imminent, was this happened at an extremely fortuitous time for the BPA. I can just hear Patrick Troy saying "why only recently we kicked a member out for reaching too many sanction points."

    Or am I being a tad cynical?

  2. Since BPA Limited is the epitome of cynicism, the answer to your question has to be "No!"

  3. Does this mean a mass PPI style refund to all consumers from the men on horseback?

  4. Interesting title for the release "TITLE"
    Also undated.

    Someone messed up.

  5. No actual result has filtered through as yet so whatever the BPA say we can only really conjecture.
    However, methinks that if PE had been found to be in the right and their lords had ruled PE's activity as lawful, the BPA would have been screaming words such as Victory for the Landlords and Parking Management Companies.
    Since it does neither but just extolls it's own quasi regulatory part in the process this leads me to think that PE have got a good spanking.

    1. Those were my thoughts exactly, The press release is very understated.

    2. Seems fairly obvious that someone has cocked up and released a draft early. TITLE and no date? If the decision had been handed down the parties involved would know. From above it looks like Mr Beavis is none the wiser..

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Fill in the blanks (before releasing to press)

    1: parking eye won
    2: parking eye lost

    click ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,to late

  9. Sounds like a half prepared 'the team we backed lost but we ourselves are paddling away at top speed' statement...

  10. Sounds like a half prepared 'the team we backed lost but we ourselves are paddling away at top speed' statement...

  11. Sounds like a half prepared 'the team we backed lost but we ourselves are paddling away at top speed' statement...

  12. strange goings on. most of my posts also triple themselves

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. Why do so many of fractious tart's comments get removed? She's not that bad, surely?

  15. She?
    Just doing some housework in clearing out repeated comments.
    I also thought I'd posted earlier today asking if Patrick Troy had committed an act of subjudicy by making a press release while their lords haven't announced the result officially

  16. It could only be subjudicy if they had added any of the judgement before the release date, as its just a puff piece talking about the BPA then no action needs to be taken.