Talk:British Parking Association

We are the BPA

We are the British Parking Association and have produced content for this page. We are aware that other edits are made so we check this page regularly in an effort to ensure it is up-to-date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Britishparking (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a page about you, not your page. It is vandlism to remove any edits that move the content towards a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBlockhead (talk • contribs) 16:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Introduction should explain topic

Hello, the introduction should briefly explain what a parking association is, because the term's meaning is not self-evident or understood worldwide. LovesMacs (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The BPA want to have sole rights over the BPA wiki entry

Wiki is a source for all to use as a point of reference.

The legalities of Private Parking are disputed by many esteemed sources such as members of the legal profession.

The BPA are using the Wiki entry to say that their members tickets carry the weight of the law when as per above this is not set in stone. Which is even accepted by their Technical Services Director Kelvin Reynolds "This is an area of concern for us all. The current situation is, when parking on private land the driver enters a contract with the land owner and therefore any ‘parking tickets’ issued as a result of a breach is enforceable through the law of contract. We agree that this area needs further clarification and is, again, something we have been discussing with Government, requesting further, clearer legislation on this area."

If anyone else edits the BPA wiki entry they immediately edit it so it reads as per they want it which is totally against the ethos of wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacouch (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason this page had been edited was in the main due to the posting of constant untruths on a daily basis. This page is not being used as a promotional tool but is trying to educate and inform the public so that they can make informed decisions relating to their own parking choices and experiences. There appears to be strong feelings that websites such as moneysavingexpert.com and consumer focus are an authority on parking matters and a trusted source of information but there is no evidence to support this.Perrymount (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

By the same token there is no evidence to support any implicit contention that the BPA is a greater authority, from a neutral perspective, or source of unbiased information than the websites referred to. One might argue that the above comment and repeated reversion of edits, good and bad, is evidence of a belief that the BPA is the only valid source of content and, further, demonstrates a fundamental inability to accept that a diversity of views on this subject is possible. If, as Perrymount, asserts there was no intention that the original content be used as a promotional tool then one must ask why was the content so rigidly controlled? As has been pointed out by other editors this is not the BPA's page but a page about the BPA. HO 87 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing of constructive content

My contributions to the page were intended to help bring the content to a more neutral stand point and were repeatedly blanked (and on at least one occasion the BPA editor was warned that this constituted vandalism). Other additions of mine were intended to properly cite the legal case mentioned (and, incidentally, provide the page with its first accurate reference by so doing), to provide a fuller quotation from the presiding judge and to improve some of the English usage. None of these additions could be described as partisan but did do away with the misleading slant (in that it had misrepresented the judgment) that had existed in the original content. They too were editted out and the text returned to its original form.

Some of the additions by other contributors could be described as being as equally partisan as that of the original text but the impression is that any content, regardless of its standpoint, that did not come from the BPA itself was blanked.

Private parking is an emotive issue and one of current concern in the UK. The public have few places to go for impartial information and are entitled to be able to rely on a wiki entry. One wonders whether any entry about the BPA could ever be relied upon? I suspect that even if it was brought to a more balanced view it would be the target for constant vandalism from aggrieved people. HO 87 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I agree in the main with this sentiment, I don't agree that the public should feel entitled to rely on a wiki entry, especially when at any time, it could be factually incorrect or misleading. Members of the public would be advised to proceed with caution and take suitable (legal) advice when dealing with matters involving parking.

Advice offered by consumer websites is often misleading and factually incorrect and gives the impression that parking tickets can be ignored or that all private parking companies are operating illegally. Whilst it may be true that there are companies operating outside of any regulation, the majority follow the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) Code of Practice. Those that don't are sanctioned and can and have been expelled from the scheme (City Watch are one such company).

Although membership to the AOS is not mandatory, new government legislation to be made law in October 2012 as part of the Protection of Freedoms BIll will make it mandatory for any private parking company that wishes to carry our parking enforcement on private land to join an Accredited Trade Association (ATA), of which the British Parking Association is currently the only one.

The Bill will also make it an offence to clamp or tow away a vehicle parked on private land, without lawful authority. In an effort to assist landowners to better protect their property from ‘selfish parkers’, Government will be introducing a form of keeper liability to private parking in that the keeper will be invited to identify the driver but if he is unwilling or unable to do so, the vehicle keeper will be liable for the parking charge. There is also a requirement to introduce an Independent Appeals Service to the sector which would enable motorists who feel that they have been treated unfairly to have their cases reviewed by an independent adjudicator. The British Parking Association are leading on this initiative and the plan is for this to be funded by the parking sector, but at no cost to the motorist and with decisions binding on the operator.Perrymount (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In relation to the comment above it may, or indeed may not, be significant that the British Parking Association is based in Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath.

One of the objectives in bringing an article to a more neutral voice is to enable greater reliance to be placed on the content. The essential vulnerability of articles to wanton, malicious or mischievous editing is well known - there have been ample examples of that in this case already - but that should not be allowed to detract from the objective. To assume that the only people who would alight on the page are those who are in some form of dispute with the Association or its members and might be seeking some form of advice or guidance, as opposed to straightforward information, is to misunderstand the readership and the purpose of the wiki project as a whole. I would agree that some form of caveat on the page would probably be advisable but it should be couched in neutral terms.

In relation to future, additional content I would propose that specific reference is made to the role the BPA has in acting as gatekeeper to the registered keeper data held by the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency and my means of which members of its Approved Operator Scheme can gain access to those records. In acting in this capacity one might posit that the BPA, regardless of its private status, owes a responsibility to the British public that would be ill-represented by anything other than neutral content.HO 87 (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation 9

Citation 9 is not relevant to the passage and the citation should be removed Dacouch (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make an edit request, please use the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

In regards to your steatement though, Citation 9 relates only to the following statement:

"Wheel clamping on private land is due to be criminalised later in 2012 when the Protection of Freedoms Bill is passed into law""

which from the section referenced, states that unless you have lawful authority to clamp, your commiting an offence. therefore surely it does relate to this statement, though the statement could be reworded slightly to help clarify what is being ciminalised.. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 20:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Parking Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150118043858/http://2014.parkex.net:80/content to http://2014.parkex.net/content
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/trouble-at-combined-parking-solutions/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)