New parking appeals panel

HO87

Dublindel wrote: »

Thanks for your support Coupon-mad. To everyone else i say this. lets not go on about the current situation, ignore ignore ignore, or the use of the courts which as we all know is the only true avenur currently for the PPC's. If government get involved then it is best that we get involved as well and make every attempt to shape the future of how this new development will be employed. be positive and lets start making some ground breaking suggestions. and one suggestion from me is that if an independent panel is created then laymen (US) should have a representative involved

I agree - although I think we may have missed the boat to some degree. Sadiq Khan is not going to be able to do too much given that we have an imminent General Election but you can bet your bottom dollar that the BPA will already be beavering away at the various shadow transport/home office nominees. If any collective body puts itself forward as a representative of an otherwise unregulated "industry" (quite how you can define parking as an industry defeats me) and offers to provide the bedrock for regulation then a government would be stupid to turn down the offer.

As previously posted private parking enforcement has been turned into a multi-million pound "industry" in just 5 years. Everyone is up for getting their slice of the cake and if the BPA is allowed to dominate the discussion then common sense dictates that it will be the interests they represent that will dominate any so-called independent adjudicator/appeal service and the way in which it operates.

Without doubt the model that will be foisted on the (largely) unsuspecting public will be that of the TPT and PATAS? Given that the independence of the TPT is currently being challenged one wonders how any formal, legal separation between the BPA and a putative appeals body could be engineered? No doubt a different management entity will be created and all of it will be funded by a levy on invoices.

I am extremely sceptical that the objective is actually to "regulate" the industry but rather more to legitimise it, giving it an air of respectability. Nobody is now going to cut off this substantial revenue stream.

Given that landowners seem to be as ignorant as the rest of the public as to the activities of the "industry" are there any landowners bodies we could also start to lobby?

usignuolo

How will any tribunal deal with cowboy clampers, often illegal, who demand cash with menaces?

Plus the BPA is adamant that it is a member services association and not a trade regulatory body (not withstanding that the DVLA and the CAB and various ministers who have pronounced seem to think it is). It does not have any sanctions over its members or any powers to intervene in disputes between its members and the public.

peter_the_piper

usignuolo wrote: »

How will any tribunal deal with cowboy clampers, often illegal, who demand cash with menaces?

Plus the BPA is adamant that it is a member services association and not a trade regulatory body (not withstanding that the DVLA and the CAB and various ministers who have pronounced seem to think it is). It does not have any sanctions over its members or any powers to intervene in disputes between its members and the public.

One can hope that once it becomes under some law or other then the boys in blue cannot fob us off with ""nothing to do with us sir, its a civil matter.""

Premier_2

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

...
Already answered quite succinctly by HO87 in post #10, I can't really add anything to that...

I disagree, HO87 post ended with the summary:

HO87 wrote: »

...There is absolutely no necessity for an appeals service as it already exists in the shape of the County Court and the established routes of ADR.

So presumably you agree with HO87.

So you can't answer either why the government is planning to create such an independent appeals panel for private car parking charges, given that you already have posted indicating that private car parking charges are, in your opinion, illegal, unlawful and/or unenforcible?

Hmmm...perhaps Sadiq Khan does have a different understanding of the law you and HO87 (and a number of other vocal posters here) have

[

HO87 wrote: »

I cannot give "dates and case nos etc" for cases that do not and never will exist.

Hmmm... how can you say that, when the person you agree so much with says that is what the County Court is there for?

Coupon-mad

Thanks for bumping this important thread, Premier. :T

Sir_Roger_deLodger

Premier wrote: »

[Hmmm... how can you say that, when the person you agree so much with says that is what the County Court is there for?

For the last time, I AGREE that is what the county court is there for, but you and your PPC buddies will not take cases there because you know you would lose. I cannot give details of cases because THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY, as you well know.

Thanks for bumping this thread Premier/Perky or whoever you are. I have now taken your advice and put you on my ignore list.

peter_the_piper

According to Nighthawk there already is an independent adjudicator. https://web.shadow-uk.com/pdf_doc/complyworld.pdf read the last sentence.
Oooo Looook a flying pig just went by my window.

HO87

Let's see if I've understood your proposition correctly, Premier. Are you suggesting that simply because a government minister has made some pronouncements about establishing an independent appeals service that it necessarily follows that said government minister is fully cognisant of the legal issues at stake? If that is the case then on the same logical basis, presumably, you still believe in Father Christmas and are intimately acquainted with the Tooth Fairy.

Sadiq Khan was given a brief and performed it. Period. There is absolutely no logical connect between what flows from the mouths of politicians and fact and to believe otherwise is sheer fantasy.

As I have already said so fundamental would the impact be on long established and well regarded areas of the law that any proposal to change the way in which legal remedy may be sought for alleged breaches of contract and/or trespass (as far as PPC tickets/invoices are concerned) that I predict that the Law Commission will give birth and at the very least, were a government actually serious about it, that a Royal Commission would be established.

Were such a Commission to be established, of course, Perky, Premier et al would have little option but to give evidence on oath. For once.

Premier_2

peter_the_piper wrote: »

According to Nighthawk there already is an independent adjudicator. https://web.shadow-uk.com/pdf_doc/complyworld.pdf read the last sentence...

So I wonder why the government minister for transport is thinking of setting up an appeals panel specifically for car parking charges?

Especially strange don't you think, given that a number of posters on here are of the belief that such charges are in the first place illegal, unlawful and/or unenforcible. Hmmm...:rolleyes:

Premier_2

HO87 wrote: »

Let's see if I've understood your proposition correctly, Premier. Are you suggesting that simply because a government minister has made some pronouncements about establishing an independent appeals service that it necessarily follows that said government minister is fully cognisant of the legal issues at stake? If that is the case then on the same logical basis, presumably, you still believe in Father Christmas and are intimately acquainted with the Tooth Fairy.

Sadiq Khan was given a brief and performed it. Period. There is absolutely no logical connect between what flows from the mouths of politicians and fact and to believe otherwise is sheer fantasy.

As I have already said so fundamental would the impact be on long established and well regarded areas of the law that any proposal to change the way in which legal remedy may be sought for alleged breaches of contract and/or trespass (as far as PPC tickets/invoices are concerned) that I predict that the Law Commission will give birth and at the very least, were a government actually serious about it, that a Royal Commission would be established.

Were such a Commission to be established, of course, Perky, Premier et al would have little option but to give evidence on oath. For once.

I think you've totally misunderstood my posts. Perhaps read them again