Parliamentary Early Day Motion

HubertGrumblethorpe

Likewise my (Labour) MP emailed but being in the bottom 100 for responses I'm not optimistic. He also has an extremely litigant PPC living in his Constituency up here in t' frozen North ...


But if you don't try, you'll never know if it could have made a difference....

ampersand

EXACTLY Hubert!!! - wrote elsewhere in relation to this 'Since when was 'doing nothing' a reason for Doing Nothing?

This - He also has an extremely litigant PPC living in his Constituency - should make him one of the first off the block!with own choice of kudos topping:-)

HO87

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I wonder why so many SNP when the rules are different up there?

I suspect because there have been a number of "trial" court cases oop nawth of late and UnSmartParking aka Town & City Parking - who recently suffered a management fraud (he had £44,000 away) making them somewhat high profile - were based in Perth. Now based in Brum instead.

Herzlos

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I wonder why so many SNP when the rules are different up there?

The PPC parasites have infested most of Scotland as well; so whilst they are essentially powerless to do anything a lot of people still get a lot of hassle.

Plus I think the SNP are being pretty good at highlight problems even if they aren't directly affected - if it needs fixed it needs fixed.

Castle

Herzlos wrote: »

The PPC parasites have infested most of Scotland as well; so whilst they are essentially powerless to do anything a lot of people still get a lot of hassle.

Plus I think the SNP are being pretty good at highlight problems even if they aren't directly affected - if it needs fixed it needs fixed.

Of course most of the PPC's operating in Scotland are actually "English" based and whilst they are effectively powerless, the average driver/RK doesn't know that. Furthermore there is no appeal system in Scotland; (this ignores Skippy's IAS when only the Driver can appeal!!)

bazster

The mention of Smart suggests it's prompted by the car park in Perth that has been causing so much anger.

gratuitous

My (Conservative) MP has been contacted to urge them to support this.

bod1467

bazster wrote: »

The mention of Smart suggests it's prompted by the car park in Perth that has been causing so much anger.

Given that the primary sponsor is the MP for Perth and North Perthshire, that's a reasonable assumption.

Umkomaas

I'd hazard a guess that this is a progression from the Scottish Parliament debate from last month. The SNP really have got their teeth into this.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/scottish-parliament-discuss-unfair.html

g0wfv

MP for Lincoln (Tory) contacted ...

Mr K McCartney JP MP
House of Commons
Westminster
SW1A 0AA

Sir,

REQUEST FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR EARLY DAY MOTION 458 - PRIVATE PARKING OPERATORS IN TOWNS AND CITIES

I wrote to you at the beginning of September with reference to the debacle that was UK Parking Control’s (UKPC) tampering of photographic evidence used to support parking charge notices (PCNs) issued at the Tritton Retail Park, Tritton Road, Lincoln.

As I am sure you are aware by now from the widespread, national media coverage that it attracted this was not isolated to just one case at Tritton Road, nor was it isolated to Tritton Road alone but numerous other cases up and down the country have come to light. UKPC have issued apologies on behalf of their ‘rogue employees’ and the company has been ‘disciplined’ through the issue of sanction points by their approved trade association (ATA) the British Parking Association (BPA). The DVLA have also suspended UKPC’s access to Registered Keeper details. For the record, and in my humble opinion, they should have been prosecuted and put out of business!

One has to ask the rhetorical question – “If this incident had not gained so much support and media coverage, how much longer would UKPC have got away with their deception?”

This is but the tip of the iceberg of what is a wholly unscrupulous business sector bereft of robust regulation and effective supervision. The complete disregard for extant legislation is wholly apparent when you scratch beneath the surface of any parking company’s (not just UKPC’s) business practices.

As an example, I have personally scratched the surface of a few cases involving the parking operator ParkingEye; without doubt the largest and most litigious of parking operators. In each case I found that ParkingEye have failed to apply for express consent under planning and advertising legislation, erecting signs that are not compliant with the limitations for deemed consent set out within. I am sure that as a JP you are familiar with the legal principle of ex turpi causa.

Indeed in one case, in which I have a personal interest as it involves a PCN issued against my partner, South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) have written to ParkingEye to demand that they apply for consent or remove the signs. I wait whatever enforcement action SKDC choose to undertake when ParkingEye invariably fail to comply by their deadline of 5 October and also the outcome to our appeal to the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service now being provided Ombudsmen Services Ltd in lieu of London Councils who ceased their service yesterday.

As I mentioned in my previous correspondence with you, this whole business sector is in drastic need of regulation and independent supervision. What you have to remember is that in many cases these are the same ‘gentlemen’ (and ladies) that used to go around illegally clamping vehicles; the PCN is the latest incarnation of the wheel clamp and a means to garner huge profits from the unsuspecting motorist through intimidation and harassment.

The BPA try to do what they can (when pressed) by sanctioning operators who breach their (not legally binding) code of practice; however this is not entirely the end of it. There is a second ATA that operators ultimately expelled from the BPA (or who determine that the BPA’s POPLA system is not working in their favour and decide to ‘jump ship’) can join. This ATA is the ludicrously named ‘Independent’ Parking Committee (IPC) originally set up by a group of operators disillusioned with the BPA and POPLA. The reason I use quotes around the word independent is that it quickly becomes apparent to those that appeal a PCN issued by an IPC member company that they have pretty much been set up to fail at the appeal stage. The IPC’s version of POPLA (the ‘Independent’ Appeals Service or IAS) is more a kangaroo court with appellants given no access to evidence against them and some pretty dubious judgements that have been proven winning appeal points with POPLA or indeed winning defences in the County Courts.

The mere existence of a second ATA is absolutely crazy. It’s like playing mummy and daddy off against each other; “the BPA and POPLA told us we couldn’t do something, but the IPC and IAS say we can” – there needs to be one set of legally binding rules and one transparent, fair and independent appeals body.

I would therefore respectfully request you put your signature to the subject Early Day Motion which aims to raise debate about this business sector and “… bring forward plans to ensure that new regulations are brought forward which are user-focused and stop what is almost a licence to harass.”

Yours faithfully,