Could N.Ireland lead the way in reforming PPC practices?

SevenTowers

Last week the Northern Ireland Assembly spent 1.5 hours discussing PPCs and passed the following motion;-

"That this Assembly expresses its concern over the practices of some car parking companies and how they operate; questions the adequacy of signage both on parking times and penalties, as well as the quantum, nature, content and design of penalty demands, the threat of legal action and the absence of appeals mechanisms; believes that we need a more robust code of practice for enforcement and more effective regulation by the British Parking Association; and calls on the Minister of the Environment to meet with the Secretary of State for Transport to outline these concerns."

For those interested, I have made a more detailed post in the Government policy section of Pepipoo, but I thought the following speach from the Mark Durkin, NI Minister responsible was worth quoting;-

"Since November 2009, DVLA has made it a prerequisite of getting keeper information that car parking companies are members of an accredited trade association. Originally, only one trade association — the British Parking Association — was accredited, but, on 24 June this year, accredited status was awarded to a second trade association, the Independent Parking Committee. Accreditation has been awarded initially on a probationary basis to allow the IPC to progress its proposed scheme.

The BPA’s code of practice specifies the required standards that its members must meet to retain membership and therefore their entitlement to obtain keeper information from the vehicle record. The code of practice sets out requirements such as maintaining professional standards in dealing with motorists; no use of aggressive or abusive language; using only uniformed staff who have visible, photographic identity badges; displaying signs at the entrance of car parks setting out the main conditions for using the car park and other signs showing charges and penalties, and the signs must be clear and of a specified size; and not misrepresenting that there is any statutory authority for enforcement, including not misrepresenting penalty notices as statutory penalty charge notices. Although the code of practice represents reasonable standards of conduct, I share Members' concerns about adherence to it."


"I am also concerned that the BPA acts more as a representative trade body that promotes its members' interests than as a regulator of the industry. Following representations from several public representatives, my predecessor, Alex Attwood, raised concerns on a number of occasions with the Department for Transport in London about the policy of giving virtually unfettered access to vehicle keeper information to car parking enforcement companies. Those concerns are reflected in the motion. They include inadequate signage warning about parking conditions and the penalties incurred for breaches; penalty letters designed to appear as official, legal documents; and excessive penalty charges and overzealous enforcement.

Alex Attwood’s representations culminated in a meeting with Stephen Hammond in London on 7 May. Following that meeting, he wrote to Stephen Hammond specifically requesting a fundamental review of private car parking; consideration of the suspension of DVLA release of information to car park operators; and the withdrawal of Departments from the BPA. At the meeting and in subsequent correspondence, Mr Hammond firmly rejected those proposals and declared that he was completely satisfied with the existing arrangements, under which car parking enforcement companies get vehicle keeper data. The release of information to private car parking companies was also discussed during a Westminster Hall debate on 19 June this year on a motion tabled by my party colleague Margaret Ritchie. In the debate, Simon Burns, the Minister of State for Transport made his Department’s position very clear. He reiterated that the Department for Transport was satisfied with the existing arrangements and, unfortunately, rejected calls for any changes.

Since coming into office, I have continued to pursue these issues. One particular concern that I and other Members have is the absence of an independent appeal procedure in Northern Ireland. In GB, the BPA administers and funds an independent appeals system for motorists who wish to contest parking charges. The scheme, called Parking On Private Lands Appeals (POPLA), was established after the implementation of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a measure that does not extend to Northern Ireland. Included in the provisions of the Act is the creation of vehicle keeper liability to pay parking charges for the use of private car parks. If the driver of a vehicle is not known, the keeper of the vehicle is liable to pay the charges. In my correspondence with the chief executive of the BPA, he has claimed that, without the power to make vehicle keepers liable, an appeal process cannot be implemented here. I simply do not accept that argument, and I have requested a meeting with him next month to press for the extension of POPLA to Northern Ireland.

I am often asked, “What if I get one of these parking notices and do not pay?”. My understanding is that, if a penalty charge notice is issued and the recipient decides not to pay, the owner of the car park may seek to instigate court action. Only a court may determine the enforceability of the notice. That would be a civil matter. Essentially, in order to succeed in court, the car park owner would have to show on the balance of probabilities either that the vehicle driver was in breach of an implied contract or that the driver was trespassing. There are obvious evidential and procedural issues involved in taking a non-payer to court, and I understand that court action is seldom taken.
It is wrong to condone the abuse of car parking facilities. We want to see fair and reasonable behaviour by all concerned. The rights of car park owners should be respected and the needs of other shoppers acknowledged. At the same time, conditions for using car parks should be reasonable and clear, and, above all, enforcement should be reasonable and fair. Enforcement should be for the purposes of the good management of the car park to the benefit of both the retailer and the shoppers and not, as some suspect, a money-making exercise for the enforcement companies."

"the research that I have shows no record of anyone having been taken to court. However, I do not think that that is comprehensive. As regards bad credit rating, I can check that out and get back to the Member in writing.

I am sure that I am not the only person who suspects that squeezing every last penny of profit out of motorists is the prime objective of many enforcement companies, and it is this that leads to unreasonable and, at times, unscrupulous actions. One argument that has some validity and is often put forward by the car park enforcement companies for retaining the existing arrangements that enable them to send payment notices to vehicle keepers is that the only practical alternative available to them would be the use of clamping, an activity that is still lawful in Northern Ireland but can no longer be used in GB except by statutory authority. Fortunately, there is very little use of clamping on private land in Northern Ireland, and we must acknowledge that finding your car clamped would be much worse than getting a parking payment notice through the post.

Although the focus tends to be on the car parking enforcement companies, let us not forget that they act as agents for the car park owners, who, as I said, are usually national retail chains. Those chains often get let off the hook, and I urge Members to remember that when they are dealing with complaints from constituents.

I reiterate that DOE's only involvement in the activities of car park enforcement companies is in relation to providing keeper information. Around 11,000 such enquires are made every year, and the companies pay a fee of £2·50 for each. It is important to state that that money goes to the DVLA in London; it is not retained by my Department.

I share the concerns that have been set out by Members. I intend to do all that I can to promote better, fairer and more reasonable practices by the enforcement companies and more effective regulation of their activities. My Department has no statutory authority to regulate the activities of car park enforcement companies on private land. As far as I am aware, no legislation is in place anywhere in Britain to regulate car parking on private land. I have engaged in correspondence with the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Regional Development on these issues. I will continue to pursue the matter with them, as I will with Stephen Hammond, with whom I have a meeting next month."

In N.Ireland we now have the opportunity to put in place a Private Parking Regulation system that serves everybody's interest, and just the PPC's profits. The NI politicians, unlike their English/Welsh counterparts, are very keen to get rid of all the underhand practices in PPC world.

I intend making detailed representations to the proposer, who is my local representative, as well as the minister. I would appreciate any contributions from the regulars about the system they would recommend if they were the Minister of Transport.

SevenTowers

The Good Points

• NI politicians are very concerned about the conduct of PPCs
• Universal cross party support ( and believe me, even today, in NI that is very rare!)
• Need for enforcement of a more robust COP
• Hopes Scotland is listening to the NI debate
• Need for an independent transparent appeals process
• Mark Durkan (Minister responsible) is well clued up, regards BPA as trade body promoting its members interests, not as a regulator, requested Stephen Hammond to suspend access to DVA keeper information, rejects keeper liabilty as a pre-requisite for an appeals system, won't let national retail chains "off the hook"
• No record of any PPC ever having taken court proceedings in NI

The not so Good Points

• Assumes "when you park in a privately owned car park, you are entering into a contract"
• Tickets referred to as "Penalty Notices"
• Stephen Hammond firmly rejects NI politicians requests for change
• Simon Burns expresses satisfaction with current arrangements
• Clamping still legal in NI (though seems to be used very rarely)
• Out of 9 members who spoke, 8 repeatedly used the word "fine", including the motion proposer
• The 9th used the word "penalty", as did the minister

Coupon-mad

Could send some of the good points to your local MP.

SevenTowers

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Could send some of the good points to your local MP.

I will, but it appears that Westminister has too many friends of PPCs pushing their agenda at the cost of the motorist. The N.Ireland politicians are talking so much sense (can't believe I'm saying that!) about regulation of PPCs, compared to Westminster politicians so I think that we have a Golden Opportunity to implement a fair Private Parking Management system. For this reason I will be concentrating my efforts on Stormont politicians.