Protection of Freedoms Bill -Update

Sirdan

This is from the "Impact Assessment " on the Bill.
(The bold is mine)

The BPA will also establish an independent arbitration mechanism. A pilot exercise is proving
successful, but there is not yet a viable funding mechanism, which will be essential if the ‘complaints
board’ is to be truly independent. Keeper liability will not be introduced until a sustainable complaints
body is established throughout the country. This is reasonable, and necessary, to achieve parity
between the local authority and private enforcement regimes. When a motorist receives a local authority
penalty charge notice they can appeal to an independent parking adjudicator. Although a motorist can
challenge a private parking charge in the courts or ask Trading Standards to consider whether the claim
was fair, this can be daunting and people may often feel that they are obliged to pay.

Consultation

The Department for Transport consulted informally with the BPA, the largest professional association
(680 members) in Europe representing organisations in the parking and traffic management industry. Its
members include, amongst others, manufacturers, car park operators, local authorities, airports and
shopping centres. The BPA has asked for the same parking enforcement regime as that operated by 11
local authorities on public roads, in particular the introduction of keeper liability for parking charges, on
private land.
Rationale
The aim is to reduce unauthorised parking and its adverse impact on the general public, businesses and
wider economy, whilst reducing levels of unpaid charges when a parking ticket has been issued. There
will be consistency between the enforcement regimes on the public road and private land. Motorists will
have a clearer understanding of their responsibilities for a vehicle and the DVLA role in providing
information to enforcement companies. There will be a reduction in inappropriate parking that causes a
loss of business for landowners and benefit to the public as consumers will be able to park near
businesses of their choice "

My comments re the bold text :-

We are supposed to trust the BPA to set up an " independent arbitration mechanism" !!!!!..what planet are the Government on ..it's turkeys voting for Christmas !

and my personal favourite ...

"There
will be consistency between the enforcement regimes on the public road and private land"

Oh really ?..tell that to APCOA then !...I will feel free stop at a red light and have my passenger alight at Luton Airport ...after all no one tickets you for letting a passenger out at a red light on a PUBLIC road !!

Do HMG really believe that these money grabbing scammers will play by the rules ?..hell.. 60% of the time even Councils can't get it right !!

(Full document here :- http://www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA11-025.pdf )

peter_the_piper

There are so many errors in in that where would one start.
1)Although a motorist can
challenge a private parking charge in the courts or ask Trading Standards to consider whether the claim
was fair, this can be daunting and people may often feel that they are obliged to pay
2).Motorists will have a clearer understanding of their responsibilities for a vehicle
3)There will be a reduction in inappropriate parking that causes a loss of business for landowners and benefit to the public as consumers will be able to park near businesses of their choice "

I assume the text was dictated by the BPA and then signed by HMG.
Do they say what affect this will have on the rules for contract regarding penalties?

How would this affect the DIY ticketing kits? I can't see how this could be be made to be legal.

trisontana

"There will be a reduction in inappropriate parking that causes a loss of business for landowners and benefit to the public as consumers will be able to park near businesses of their choice "

What do they mean by "inappropriate Parking" ? Do they mean daring to stop over the arbitrary time-limit set by supermarkets, even though you may have spent a lot of money in the shop? Or daring to have your wheel touch a white line?

The powers-that-be don't seem to realize that the vast majority of PPCs operate in places where the public are invited to park (supermarkets and retail parks) and most tickets are handed out to customers of those establishments who fall foul of the silly made-up rules. It's not about preventing motorists trespassing on "real" private land. PPCs don't operate in those sorts of places.

HO87

The BPA lobbying department knows no bounds. Whatever else you say this impact assessment could not be more favourable to the BPA's position. One wonders at what point the BPA will "big up" the improvement to its procedures (and, one gets the impression, of its progression to that ultimate of roles - regulator) it has carried out by employing an outside auditor to carry out checks on its membership. A little bird tells me that the NSI (National Security Inspectorate) - or rather its parent company Insight Certification - have been fulfilling that role for some time. I also understand that those companies to be audited are contacted ahead of time and mutally convenient appointments made. Now that's the basis of sound auditing.

trisontana

Although a motorist can challenge a private parking charge in the courts or ask Trading Standards to consider whether the claim was fair, this can be daunting and people may often feel that they are obliged to pay

It's not up to the motorist (or do they mean the RK?) to "challenge" this at all. That's down to the PPC. They are the ones who are instigating the court case, not the motorist. Even the head of the BPA has admitted that if a motorist ignores their silly letters then nothing can be done about it.

peter_the_piper

Another thing that floated to the friont of my pea brain, I assume that all car parks will have to have parking place orders to bring them into line with the council ones.

trisontana

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Another thing that floated to the friont of my pea brain, I assume that all car parks will have to have parking place orders to bring them into line with the council ones.

Precisely! otherwise they will still be bound by civil law which does not allow for unfair penalties.

peter_the_piper

So if there is no order then there is no reason for the RK to give the drivers name as the parking area would be invalid.
I wonder if the councils realise they would be able to milk this for hosting the order and having it available to see.

trisontana

Just think of all that bureaucracy. It would mean every supermarket and retail park, plus cinemas, airports, railway stations and even a single shop with a couple of parking spaces would have to apply for a TO.

There has been an option in Scotland for private car parks to apply for a TO for disabled spaces. So far the take-up has been minuscule.

peter_the_piper

I feel a question to the minister coming on.

HO87

trisontana wrote: »

There has been an option in Scotland for private car parks to apply for a TO for disabled spaces. So far the take-up has been minuscule.

To obtain a TO there are things a PPC would need to do requiring investment beyond that of a cheap CCTV camera and cabling or an occasional attendant. The chances of that being carried out by a PPC is pretty slim hence the smal uptake.