Why is the BPA publishing misleading figures about the number of court cases its members bring?
The BPA provided information to the Ministry of Justice last year that its members actually take between 36,000 and 90,000 people to civil court each year. They did this for the 'Impact Assessment' on the registered keeper liability Clause 56 for the then forthcoming Protection of Freedoms Bill. Here's the link that proves it: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/legislation/freedom-bill/keeper-liability-parking-ia?view=Binary
“The BPA has conducted a survey of its members and the analysis suggests that around 1.8 million parking charges are issued per year of which 31 per cent go unpaid. This was broken down as: 0.6 million parking charges issued via ANPR cameras – 60 per cent paid, 40 per cent not paid. 1.2 million parking charges issued via a ticket – 74 per cent paid, 26 per cent not paid.
"The number of tickets not being paid is likely to rise as people become increasingly aware that they can simply refuse to identify the driver. This will hinder the ability of landowners to control unwanted and unauthorised parking on their property and could result in a number of small businesses not being able to continue trading. The BPA has indicated that over the last year the number of individuals that pay the parking charge is decreasing by about 3 per cent because of increased awareness.
Intervention is necessary at this stage to address this trend and to allow landowners to continue to effectively enforce parking without the need for clamps. In addition, the BPA believes that 2 - 5 per cent of tickets issued end up in court (36,000 to 90,000). The introduction of the independent appeals service would reduce this.”
Actually, there is no such burden on the courts. How is the BPA able to get away with producing such completely false figures? And how can they be accepted by the Ministry of Justice in a DfT ‘Impact Assessment’?
“The BPA has conducted a survey of its members and the analysis suggests that around 1.8 million parking charges are issued per year of which 31 per cent go unpaid. This was broken down as: 0.6 million parking charges issued via ANPR cameras – 60 per cent paid, 40 per cent not paid. 1.2 million parking charges issued via a ticket – 74 per cent paid, 26 per cent not paid.
"The number of tickets not being paid is likely to rise as people become increasingly aware that they can simply refuse to identify the driver. This will hinder the ability of landowners to control unwanted and unauthorised parking on their property and could result in a number of small businesses not being able to continue trading. The BPA has indicated that over the last year the number of individuals that pay the parking charge is decreasing by about 3 per cent because of increased awareness.
Intervention is necessary at this stage to address this trend and to allow landowners to continue to effectively enforce parking without the need for clamps. In addition, the BPA believes that 2 - 5 per cent of tickets issued end up in court (36,000 to 90,000). The introduction of the independent appeals service would reduce this.”
Actually, there is no such burden on the courts. How is the BPA able to get away with producing such completely false figures? And how can they be accepted by the Ministry of Justice in a DfT ‘Impact Assessment’?
Asked on 21 July 2012 by NM, via email
Answered by
Honest John
The Ministry of Justice responded as follows:
“Answering your questions in turn: (a) Of the 1,174,053 money claims made in 2011, we have identified 845 cases brought by members of the Approved Operator Scheme (AOS). (b) Of the 845 cases identified in (a) above 49 proceeded to a final hearing in front of a judge. (c) Of the 49 cases identified in (b) above, 24 resulted in a judgment for the claimant.”
Though these figures are likely to be undercounts, there is a huge difference between 24 cases, 49 cases or 845 cases and the 36,000 to 90,000 cases implied in the Impact Assessment. It seems to me that the potential £160,000,000 penalty income to be made from motorists by members of the BPA ‘Approved Operator Scheme’ rather then protection of businesses from unauthorised parking is the real reason why Clause 56 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill was promoted and is being made law. It’s another law that the blinkered British public has allowed unchallenged onto the statute books, which is very surprising given the huge number of complaints I receive every week about unfair or plain incorrect parking penalty charges.
“Answering your questions in turn: (a) Of the 1,174,053 money claims made in 2011, we have identified 845 cases brought by members of the Approved Operator Scheme (AOS). (b) Of the 845 cases identified in (a) above 49 proceeded to a final hearing in front of a judge. (c) Of the 49 cases identified in (b) above, 24 resulted in a judgment for the claimant.”
Though these figures are likely to be undercounts, there is a huge difference between 24 cases, 49 cases or 845 cases and the 36,000 to 90,000 cases implied in the Impact Assessment. It seems to me that the potential £160,000,000 penalty income to be made from motorists by members of the BPA ‘Approved Operator Scheme’ rather then protection of businesses from unauthorised parking is the real reason why Clause 56 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill was promoted and is being made law. It’s another law that the blinkered British public has allowed unchallenged onto the statute books, which is very surprising given the huge number of complaints I receive every week about unfair or plain incorrect parking penalty charges.
Similar questions
I have read with interest over recent months your readers' comments on the issues surrounding ANPR cameras operated by local authorities. We at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal often receive appeals from motorists...
So far I have not been caught by private parking enforcers, but I have some ideas if I ever am. For example, if I'm in breach of contract with anyone, it's with the owner of the supermarket or whatever,...
I recently parked in a hotel for a meeting and, in the absence of seeing any signage (albeit it was going dark and I was a few minutes late) went straight into the hotel. Last week I was horrified to receive...
.jpg)
