Clamping ban bill very bad indeed: keeper responsibility for PPC invoices

ripped_off_driver

Having raised the alarm initially I am becoming more relaxed.

On reflection PPCs may have been sold a pup here. A right to claim is not an obligation to pay. I suspect the BPA will have been telling its members that this measure will solve the issue of non payment. It will not because the two main issues affecting such non payment still remain - the need to go to court to claim in each case and the need to overcome significant legal obstacles to win the claim (only one of which would be removed).

I hope the PPC trolls who are no doubt watching now realise this.

However, having said that, the move should be resisted as it could be the start of a slippery slope to some sort of statutory scheme al la council tickets. Secondly, the PPCs will of course lie and cheat and pretend that the RK is liable and must pay, rather than that the RK can be subject to a claim. Here education will be key and this is why forums like this one are so important. We now know why the PPCs are so determined to disrupt and censor the work of these boards - only 40% of these invoices are paid. It must be incredibly frustrating to have set up a scheme to effectively dupe people into paying unenforcable invoices, only for some pesky sites to go and let the cat out of the bag.

HO87

trisontana wrote: »

Hence my idea of a completely independent regulator which (amongst its other tasks) would ensure that any wording on documents would not threaten or mislead the motorist.

I'm afraid I disagree with your proposition. As far as I can see an "independent regulator" would only serve to provide the very legitimacy World PPC so desperately craves. Its also perfectly obvious that it will then be ruthlessly exploited as every other registration (ICO, SIA etc) or membership (BPA, Chambers of Commerce) has historically been to create, in the public mind, an image of honesty, integrity and, importantly, authority so that it parts promptly with its cash.

There are substantial parts of PPC World that were established purely and simply to make cash and the closest those companies come to providing any form of car park management is that they know what car parks look like but might struggle to spell "management". They actually manage nothing but the Golden Goose the Secretary of State so thoughtfully provides in the form of the "electronic link" to the DVLA computers. Look how many PPC companies fold having never filed any accounts at Companies House if you want for evidence of how seriously committed to service these companies really are.

The BPA has firmly set its face against dealing with public complaints and its disciplinary record (as published, at least) against companies that "push the envelope" is pretty woeful. Additionally, I suspect that they know they can't clear out the stables themselves (perhaps they don't want to?) but would happily stand back and allow a regulator to scalp a few bad apples.

There is no reason to think that a Private Parking Regulator will be any more rigorous in pursuing wrong-doing in PPC's (I refuse to call it an industry as its actually a form of arbitrary levy-farming and agriculture is by definition not an industry) than any other regulator ever has been. The DTI - Department of Timidity and Inaction; The SFO - Serious Farce Office; FSA - Fundamentally Supine Authority did not earn these nicknames as a result of their doggedly determined investigations.

An independent regulator offers far more benefit, financially, to the PPC than it could possibly provide protection to the public. As I have said for some time there is an independent tribunal to hear PPC cases. Its called the Small Claims Court.

Coupon-mad

HO87 wrote: »

I'm afraid I disagree with your proposition. As far as I can see an "independent regulator" would only serve to provide the very legitimacy World PPC so desperately craves. Its also perfectly obvious that it will then be ruthlessly exploited as every other registration (ICO, SIA etc) or membership (BPA, Chambers of Commerce) has historically been to create, in the public mind, an image of honesty, integrity and, importantly, authority so that it parts promptly with its cash.

There are substantial parts of PPC World that were established purely and simply to make cash and the closest those companies come to providing any form of car park management is that they know what car parks look like but might struggle to spell "management". They actually manage nothing but the Golden Goose the Secretary of State so thoughtfully provides in the form of the "electronic link" to the DVLA computers. Look how many PPC companies fold having never filed any accounts at Companies House if you want for evidence of how seriously committed to service these companies really are.

The BPA has firmly set its face against dealing with public complaints and its disciplinary record (as published, at least) against companies that "push the envelope" is pretty woeful. Additionally, I suspect that they know they can't clear out the stables themselves (perhaps they don't want to?) but would happily stand back and allow a regulator to scalp a few bad apples.

There is no reason to think that a Private Parking Regulator will be any more rigorous in pursuing wrong-doing in PPC's (I refuse to call it an industry as its actually a form of arbitrary levy-farming and agriculture is by definition not an industry) than any other regulator ever has been. The DTI - Department of Timidity and Inaction; The SFO - Serious Farce Office; FSA - Fundamentally Supine Authority did not earn these nicknames as a result of their doggedly determined investigations.

An independent regulator offers far more benefit, financially, to the PPC than it could possibly provide protection to the public. As I have said for some time there is an independent tribunal to hear PPC cases. Its called the Small Claims Court.

Post of the Month for me. :T

You are indeed wise and I love 'PPC World' we must all use it from now on!