MSE News: Government urged to tackle dodgy private parking firms

DaveF327 wrote: »

If the government want to tackle a big issue about private parking restrictions and these woolly termed "contracts", there should be regulation regarding the size of lettering on signage on entering the car park. The lettering should be at least of the same legal size and type as other on-road direction signs.

This way, drivers should have the opportunity to turn around and leave a car park without penalty (yes, i use that term figuratively) if they don't agree to be bound by any contract. Those parking-eye cameras are very worrying, particularly if they snap you entering and leaving without regards to whether you parked there or not or whether you returned for a genuine reason.

If it goes through in it's current form Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Bill will all but kill camera based systems because one of the conditions for claiming against the keeper (as opposed to the driver as they won't know who that is ) is this :-

"A notice to the driver must be given before the vehicle is removed from the

land in question (and while it is stationary) by affixing it to the vehicle or by

handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle"

BYE BYE PARKING EYE !!

Bit worrying even in the MSE article it keeps referring to them as fines!!!

Amazing that it's the CAB jointly calling for regulation of a so-called 'self-regulated' (ha!) 'industry' (ha again!).

Do CAB not realise yet that their standard intranet advice template their advisers have to refer to, was actually written by the self-regulating PPC biased BPA? The CAB have never twigged the conflict of interests and now their advisers all say 'well you probably entered into a contract so you should appeal'. They get it soooo wrong, how many people have fallen for that rubbish?

It is shocking that the CAB was 'got at' and still don't seem to know it. Now they look even more stupid, calling for regulation only because they've seen some cases where they think the 'contract' was maybe not very fair...


To the CAB:
What flippin' contract? What flippin 'PCN'? Wake up and smell the coffee CAB, these are ALL unfair!!

It's a good thing that you want to see the end of the PPC's horrendously aggressive debt collection tactics - but your advice urgently needs updating by Tim Cary or another legal person with knowledge of this GENERIC SCAM by COWBOYS (to quote Martin Lewis himself).

All you should be doing at CAB branch level is pointing people to the Watchdog advice:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3164256

...and telling the registered keeper to ignore the threatograms as they are not liable for this BOGUS PCN even if the driver outstayed their welcome - whatever.

The PPCs have become too greedy and will surely cause their own demise. :mad:

I am becoming increasingly concerned about the stance of some posters here. By joining the call for government regulation of this so-called industry, we are, I'm afraid, falling into the trap that the BPA has so carefully constructed over the last year or so.

And before we go any further let's lay one ghost to rest right at the outset. The private parking "industry" is as much an industry as the study of flying saucers is a science and the continual use of the term (I confess, even I have used it on occasions) conveys an air of respectability and endeavour that it, collectively, does not deserve. IMHO this does no favours to those companies who provide a genuine service but, perhaps tellingly, it does provide a cloak for the activities of the others who exploit the ignorance of landowners and their "customers" alike.

Let's be frank, the BPA has conducted an energetic and, one must say, reasonably effective campaign in raising the "industry's" (please note ironic usage) profile and has succeeded in focussing the public's and government's attention on regulation. This, I believe, neatly side-steps the crucial issue of what is it that is to be regulated and is also the reason why the proposals within the Bill appear so awkward or misplaced. The real risk is that if we continue to engage with the BPA-created debate about regulation then we will be unwittingly conniving with them in the legitimisation of the PPC.

Although an emotive analogy, I'd agree, it would be rather like proposing that euthanasia be regulated. Few would disagree with the proposition but by leaping straight to debating regulation the essential legality of the proposition is entirely avoided. If euthanasia was regulated it would become legal without any examination of the legal, not to mention moral, implications. And that is exactly what will happen with the PPC debate unless the BPA are challenged, challenged repeatedly and challenged hard. Regulate the PPC and the PPC would be able to step out from the shadows and be recognised in all its clean, bright, and sparkly, new-found legitimacy. This is a nonsense surely?

I never ceased to be amazed at the apparent myopia (or is it wilful blindness?) of those who set themselves up as our rulers. Can't they see the number of bottom-feeders that occupy the many dark and foetid corners of PPC World? How many companies have "phoenixed"? How many shell companies and shill directors are there?

And why does this business need additional regulation anyway when there are plenty of existing regulations that could be employed to control their activities? All that is actually needed is the will and the sharp application of the pointed end of a Size 10, steel-reinforced Winkle-picker to the collective rear end of Trading Standards who, instead of aggressively chasing counterfeit clothing producers (thereby protecting big-business's brands) could do something really useful for the community and chase down the criminal element because the BPA won't (or actually probably can't) do it. After all the membership provides the wealth of the BPA and for the Association to take a scalpel to its own guts and cut out the problem is as likely as turkeys plucking each other and throwing themselves into the scalding tanks.

Remember: Regulating private parking would be the modern day equivalent of the licensing of snake oil. Let's see if there is a need and indeed a place for snake oil first and - most importantly - whether it is legal and "does what it says on the tin".

Re HO87 above : Simply the best post on this forum to date !