Shall I let you into a little secret, which you probably won't believe (but I have the evidence to back it up). My interest was sparked when one of my daughters got a PCN from Parking Eye (PE). I was fortunate enough to get my hands on an internal BPA memo and was particularly concerned because PE's PCNs always 'attack' the Registered Keeper for payment by misrepresenting that it is the RK who is liable.

Now, using the BPA's very own legal advice as per the internal memo, I submitted a complaint to the BPA Approved Operator Scheme about the fact that PE's PCNs falsely misrepresent that the RK is liable (I copied the DVLA into the complaint because 'reasonable cause' relies on compliance with the BPA Code of Practise). Guess what? Astonishingly it was Robert Toft at the DVLA said that the internal memo was no longer “valid” because it was now incorporated into the CoP (quite who authorised him - a civil servant - to answer on behalf of the BPA I've no idea). Notwithstanding that claim, the legal opinion still stands incorporated or not.

The BPA had a situation whereby Parking Eye, its biggest member, was operating in breach of the CoP by sending out PCNs demanding payment from the RK so something had to be done. I backed my complaint up by referring to the internal BPA AOS Note AOS 1.08 and I made sure that particular BPA Note also got into the public domain. Now, prior to August 2011, the BPA CoP Paragraph B 9.3 specifically stated:- “Your letter to the keeper should point out the details of the unauthorised parking event and ask the driver for payment.” I have been told that the DVLA and the BPA were then hit with complaints that AOS Members were issuing tickets that simply targeted the registered keeper and made not even a pretence of asking for the drivers details. Clearly those notices were a breach of B9.3 of the CoP and an embarrassment to both the BPA and the DVLA. Something clearly had to be done as the consumers were being targeted wholesale by these private parking operators in a flagrant breach of the CoP. Well the BPA decided that they'd had enough and immediately swung into action. This is how they dealt with the 'problem' - quite incredible really.

In August 2011 an annotation to Paragraph B9.3 was inserted called Paragraph B9.3.1, which stated: “Your letter to the keeper should point out the details of the unauthorised parking event and ask for payment.” Note the critical phrase 'the driver' has now been removed. Unfortunately, being the goons that they are, they had forgotten to delete the last sentence of paragraph B9.3 so the new (August version) of the CoP read as follows: B9.3.”Your letter to the keeper should point out the details of the unauthorised parking event and ask the driver for payment.”

It took until November 2011 before the BPA realised its mistake and the final erroneous sentence in Para B9.3 has now been removed completely. There is therefore no longer now a requirement under the BPA CoP for the letter to the keeper to ask the driver for payment. Almost overnight those unlawful Parking Charge Notices subject of the complaints became Code-compliant. That sorted that particular problem and no mistake. Patrick Troy and the BPA like to spout nonsense about “putting the motorist's interests at the heart of BPA decision making.” I think they should be judged by their actions and not their words.