The age issue

peter_the_piper

ppc_guy wrote: »

Nice reply,

With regard to browsing i would say you were intending to be a customer as opposed to not. Customers cover those who receive a product or service in this case the service is the viewing of stock

This is achieved by a local supermarket by charging everyone who parks and giving a credit for the parking fee on purchase of a minimum of £XX.xx

ashleypride

ppc_guy wrote: »

this whole parking lark is a bizarre one to me. We pay the council tax but they ticket us for parking wrong and nobody complains (or not in the numbers that do for PPC's). Yet we dont pay a landowner and when we get ticketed all hell breaks lose.

Really? The council have guidelines and regulation a basis in law, and an adjuactor. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's much more transparent.
I think it's fair to say, most PPCs are not interested in solving the actual problem, and their business model is based on making money through 'fines'.

ppc_guy wrote: »

However surely you have to feel for the little shop owner with 2 spaces who loses money and trade because people have just nipped into the fast food joint accross the road.

Oh absolutely. If people parked considerately there wouldn't be a need for PPCs, I appreciate solving a parking problem for this type of space is tricky.

AlexisV

Any opinions on the Freedom Bill PPC guy?

As it stands it's completely inadequate for all parties and as clear as mud.

How would you feel about standardised government approved signage, written parking orders, a payment fund as with the landlord deposit scheme, and an appeals process overseen by PATAS or the TPT?

I've no problem with the notion of land control, but a perfectly good system already exists when it comes to council enforcement. Surely it's in your interests to keep things shady and unregulated. The BPA wants things to stay as they are, but with keeper liability (liable for what we don't know at this stage) just so PPCs can add some legalise to their templated letters.

The BPA wants to oversee appeals, but want funding. Yet the only legal guidance that currently exists would be to disallow the vast majority of appeals under contract law? So they would have to fake it, which would probably cause more problems for them in the long term as the process would be exposed as a sham. Without legal cues, such as standard signage and parking orders, how could they reach any decision to the satisfaction of the law anyway?

Inflatable_Armadillo

AlexisV wrote: »

Any opinions on the Freedom Bill PPC guy?

As it stands it's completely inadequate for all parties and as clear as mud.

How would you feel about standardised government approved signage, written parking orders, a payment fund as with the landlord deposit scheme, and an appeals process overseen by PATAS or the TPT?

I've no problem with the notion of land control, but a perfectly good system already exists when it comes to council enforcement. Surely it's in your interests to keep things shady and unregulated. The BPA wants things to stay as they are, but with keeper liability (liable for what we don't know at this stage) just so PPCs can add some legalise to their templated letters.

The BPA wants to oversee appeals, but want funding. Yet the only legal guidance that currently exists would be to disallow the vast majority of appeals under contract law? So they would have to fake it, which would probably cause more problems for them in the long term as the process would be exposed as a sham. Without legal cues, such as standard signage and parking orders, how could they reach any decision to the satisfaction of the law anyway?

We have a winner! :T

Great post and exactly what should happen.

Sorry PPC guy, but the whole private parking industry is a sham industry and the only thing that will solve the legitimate problem of a very small minority of people abusing parking provided on private land is for the government to implement fair legislation to allow land owners to protect their legitimate business interests and ONLY their legitmate business interests. As AlexisV says this would have to include standardised signage, for everything from 'free' time restricted car parks, P&D and controlled/restricted parking on commercial and residential properties. This signage would be completely standard even down to size and colours used etc, and any 'company' or land owner wishing to enforce a private land parking order (as I think they should be called) would only be allowed to put their name and logo at the top. These signs would become so familiar to the public once in use (as most drivers use car parks) that the reality is that deliberate parking abuse would actually become quite rare and suspect that most people would follow the rules, elimating the need for anyone to make money out of the scheme and enforcement could be achieved by the actual land/business owner directly, for very little cost to them, which after all, the issue of problem parking is supposed to be about!

However, that would mean most PPC's would go out of business and making a profit out of parking (it is ok to do this you know!) would be about offering legitimate private parking on land directly owned or leased by a parking company and because they would have a legal framework, possible even standardised penalty (yes, I would be happy for them to be called penalty's if you have a robust framework to issue them) charges. In the case of enforcing parking for residential and commercial property, freeholders would have to pay a company to manage parking for residents and pass on the cost of doing so as part of their leasehold or rental agreements, or just not both with enforcement and let people sort themselves out.

Then of course... I awoke from my dream!!!!

Sirdan

"this would have to include standardised signage, for everything from 'free' time restricted car parks, P&D and controlled/restricted parking on commercial and residential properties. This signage would be completely standard even down to size and colours used etc, and any 'company' or land owner wishing to enforce a private land parking order (as I think they should be called) would only be allowed to put their name and logo at the top. These signs would become so familiar to the public once in use (as most drivers use car parks) that the reality is that deliberate parking abuse would actually become quite rare and suspect that most people would follow the rules, elimating the need for anyone to make money out of the scheme "

Maybe not such a dream ....after all...there is a proposed amendment to Schedule 4 of the Freedom Bill which allows for such provisions ...



"The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.

(3)

The provision made under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, include


provision—


(a)

requiring notices of more than one kind to be displayed on any relevant


land;


(b)

as to the content or form of any notices required to be displayed; and


(c)

as to the location of any notices required to be displayed.


(4)

Regulations under this paragraph may—


(a)

include incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving


provision;


(b)

make different provision for different areas or purposes.’."



So someone in Parliament agrees that proper regulation is the only way to go .....

As this Bill progresses the BPA may find themselves ruminating on the age old phrase "be careful what you wish for .."

AlexisV

Fair enough. Until the government starts to draft the signage, stands back and sees they've just written what amounts to an unenforceable contractual penalty.

They're going to have to use the term 'Penalty' and then create new statute to cover it.

But then what happens if nobody pays this new 'penalty'?

Even if all the t's were crossed, somebody would seek a judicial review before long.

This is unchartered territory for a UK government - creating laws that enable private individuals to fine other citizens.

The bill is like a colander at the moment. I suspect we might get a cheese grater at the next draft, and then a sieve after that!

HO87

AlexisV wrote: »

This is unchartered territory for a UK government - creating laws that enable private individuals to fine other citizens.

The bill is like a colander at the moment. I suspect we might get a cheese grater at the next draft, and then a sieve after that!

Correct and unless someone picks up on the fact then any new legislation will be worse than a chees grater.

I suspect that the issue is that the only legislative model to work from is that of DPE and a read through of the legislative impact assessment demonstrates that in spades. The author of the impact assessment clearly has no understanding of the existing legal situation and blythely spouts on about parity and equivalence with the DPE structure when a comparison of the two - from a legal standpoint - is almost impossible unless aspects of contract law are simply abandoned.

What is extremely clear is that those in Westminster, MP's and civil servants alike, have failed entirely to undertand how PPC's work and until that is made clear to them - and the rest of the public - clause 56 and the new amendments are destined to become law.

Regardless of the fact that any new law based on the current Bill will set the precedent of enabling companies to fine private individuals that is, de facto, what currently subsists.

Sirdan

AlexisV wrote: »

Fair enough. Until the government starts to draft the signage, stands back and sees they've just written what amounts to an unenforceable contractual penalty.

They're going to have to use the term 'Penalty' and then create new statute to cover it.

But then what happens if nobody pays this new 'penalty'?

Even if all the t's were crossed, somebody would seek a judicial review before long.

This is unchartered territory for a UK government - creating laws that enable private individuals to fine other citizens.

The bill is like a colander at the moment. I suspect we might get a cheese grater at the next draft, and then a sieve after that!

Yes the legislators drafting this have tied themselves well and truly in knots.
They refer to a "parking charge however described"...I suspect that is included in order to allow for usage of the term "penalty" legitimately.

What they have failed to comprehend is the simple fact that a contractual penalty is a penalty by virtue of it's effect not it's name and as such it matters not what you call it , a charge or penalty , it is still not allowed for in Contract Law.

HMG are clearly not prepared to stick their necks on the line by creating proper statutory provisions which allow for private companies to enforce penalties hence they have left these charges in the care of the County Court by way of contract law.

I predict some very wasteful drawn out court cases involving keepers in particular.

What a total shambles...