From The Times
April 30, 2009
Rogue company to help set code on fair parking
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
A rogue clamping company that overcharges drivers and rejects legitimate
appeals has been appointed to a Government-backed body that aims to
ensure fairness in parking enforcement.
Parking Control Management (PCM) is one of a group of companies
entrusted with creating and enforcing a new code of conduct for the
parking industry. Yet it has repeatedly breached the existing code by
double-charging drivers. It forced an elderly couple to pay £375 to
retrieve their car after they had parked on the forecourt of a boarded-
up office for 30 minutes.
The Home Office will claim today that it is taking action against unfair
clamping on private land by requiring all parking companies to be
licensed and to adhere to an approved industry code. But an
investigation by The Times has revealed that the only existing code is
already being breached repeatedly by companies that have agreed to abide
by it.
It was created by the British Parking Association (BPA), which the
Government recognises as the industry’s only approved trade body. The
association has investigated 640 complaints against its members in the
past year and identified 58 breaches of its code.
But in no case has it taken disciplinary action against a member, even
after multiple breaches of rules on sign visibility and the amount that
can be charged for clamping and removal.
The AA said that the code was too weak and that the BPA was a toothless
body that could not be trusted to regulate its members. Edmund King, the
AA president, said: “We are very concerned that the Government may be
outsourcing to the BPA the responsibility for protecting motorists from
rogue clampers. The BPA has failed to hold its members to account for
breaching the code. It appears more concerned with protecting the
profits of its members than ensuring justice.”
Mr King said that motorists ticketed or clamped on private land should
have the same right of appeal to an independent body as drivers who were
fined for parking offences on public roads. The Traffic Penalty
Tribunal, which hears appeals against tickets issued on public roads,
said yesterday that it had ruled in favour of the driver in 60 per cent
of cases last year.
The Times alerted the BPA five weeks ago to the case of the elderly
couple double-charged by PCM in Maidenhead in January in a breach of the
code. This states that if a vehicle is removed within three hours of
clamping, the driver should pay only the removal fee, not the clamp-
release fee.
PCM charged Mavis and Brian Maynard, aged 73 and 77, a removal fee of
£200, a release fee of £130, a storage fee of £40 even though the car
was retrieved two hours later, and a credit card fee of £5. It rejected
two internal appeals by the Maynards.
Martin Halstead was also double-charged by the company in Maidenhead. He
paid a release fee of £130 and a removal fee of £200 even though his car
was not removed. PCM tried to justify the latter fee by claiming that a
removal truck had been called. The company refunded £240 after Mr
Halstead began legal proceedings. He wrote to the BPA six weeks ago
asking it to investigate eight apparent breaches of the code by the
clamping company. The BPA has yet to respond.
Patrick Troy, chief executive of the BPA, said that a member of staff
would be visiting PCM to check that it was complying with the code. He
said the BPA preferred to work with member companies and give them the
chance to change their practices rather than fining or expelling them.
Last week the BPA appointed David Blake, head of PCM, to a board given
the job of “achieving greater fairness within unregulated parking on
private land”.
Http://business.
t/article6194610.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Posts
