Parking association chiefs' firms closed

Parking association chiefs' firms closed Parking association chiefs' firms closed

FIRMS run by the parking
industry bosses in
charge of controlling and
disciplining former clampers
have been suspended
from using sensitive
data to hunt down
motorists, the Daily Echo
can reveal.
The British Parking Association
(BPA) has confirmed that two
firms run by its board members
were caught misleading
drivers with their
warning signs.
The pair are
among dozens of
c o m p a n i e s
approved by the
BPA to request
the names and
addresses of the
registered keepers
from the
DVLA to enforce
new parking rules.
Supporters of the
Daily Echo Fair Deal for
Drivers campaign have dubbed the
revelations “embarrassing” and
“deeply worrying”.
It comes after the BPA, a self-regulating
body, told the Echo that it
was capable of weeding out rogue
operators rather than the
Government imposing state control
on their multi-million-pound
industry.
The Daily Echo yesterday
revealed how one Hampshire-based
firm, Shoal Enforcement,
lies about being able to access
DVLA data in parking charge tickets
and signs.
The BPA said the firm was not a
member and therefore not allowed
to buy data.
But it insisted if the Government
forced compulsory BPA membership,
its strict code of conduct –
which includes rules forbidding
deception – would root out rogue
operators.
Yet it has emerged members
of the BPA board, which helps
write the code, run national
firms that since October 16
have been suspended for at
least three months from
accessing DVLA data following
a Government probe.
They are chief executives
Simon Renshaw-Smith, of
Excel Parking, and Gary Osner
of Roxburghe.
On October 1 the
Government banned clamping
on private land but also
changed the law so that registered
keepers were responsible
for parking charges.
Before then, only a
vehicle’s driver was
responsible, making
charges impossible to
enforce if a registered
keeper refused to
name the driver.
The DVLA found
that Excel Parking and
Roxburghe were bagging
cash from
parking tickets
in the
weeks before the law changed on
October 1 with misleading warnings
that registered keepers were
liable to pay up or identify the driver
responsible.
A spokesman said: “They were
all claiming either on signage,
penalty charge notices or websites
that there is keeper liability in
regards to paying the charge or
naming the driver before October 1
for the latter.”
Roads minister Stephen
Hammond added: “If it is brought to
our attention that a company does
not meet the necessary standards,
we will investigate. If the allegations
are proven we will stop the release
of keeper information to them.”
Southampton Itchen MP John
Denham, who backs our Fair Deal
for Drivers campaign, said: “The
Government has got some serious
questions to answer about why
they were given this power in the
first place.
“It is extraordinary that two leading
members have been suspended
just days after the
new powers came into
force.
“This confirms my
worst fears that the
BPA would not be a
suitable organisation
to oversee access to
driver licence information.”
Mr Denham, along
with the AA and city
council bosses supports
tighter Government
regulation and
licensing of parking
firms rather than the industry
self-regulating.
Paul Watters, AA head of public
affairs, said the revelation was
“dynamite”.
He said: “It is very embarrassing
for the BPA but the DVLA was
right to do this.”
The BPA said Mr Renshaw-Smith
and Mr Osner were still in post and
that their companies were “only
guilty” of trying to close the “loophole”
on keeper liability, which the
Government had now addressed
with legislation.
Kelvin Reynolds, director of policy
and public affairs at the BPA,
said: “We will be taking appropriate
disciplinary action against the companies
concerned but the best way
to protect motorists is to ensure that
companies rectify minor technical
breaches, rather than labelling
them rogue operators, which in this
case is simply not true.”
Mr Renshaw-Smith and Mr Osner
were unavailable for comment
through their suspended firms.

Comments(4)

Plum Pudding says...
2:26pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Although they claim the code of conduct is " compulsory" it is clearly not and without legislation it is de facto "voluntary". It takes little effort to recall other codes of conduct that have been ignored in pursuit of profit, take for example the press with phone hacking and other breaches of personal privacy. The excuse that legislation would not work is glibly and routinely trotted out whenever the codes are called into question but clearly voluntary codes do not work either. One is left wondering, with tongue in cheek, what they have to be so worried about...!?

dopplershift says...
3:40pm Tue 23 Oct 12

"she's got a tikka to ride"...............
.

Subject48 says...
4:03pm Tue 23 Oct 12

wrong story doppleshift... :D

VictorMeldrew says...
2:39am Wed 24 Oct 12

Ticketers shooting themselves in the foot. Don't ever pay these scum bags a penny.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree