So...

Parkrage

Johno100 wrote: »

That was the previous government, when Eric Pickles was SoS for DCLG and seemed to take a personal interest in parking matters. Whether there is the same will in that Department or the government generally in this parliament we are still to see.

Seems to be not, looking at the number of Conservative MPs who've signed the Early Day Motion.

bazster

Johno100 wrote: »

That was the previous government, when Eric Pickles was SoS for DCLG and seemed to take a personal interest in parking matters. Whether there is the same will in that Department or the government generally in this parliament we are still to see.

The consultation continued under the new government and was recently concluded. The Sir Humphreys have indicated that there will be action.

Coupon-mad

Yes, this is still a current urgent matter for the DCLG. There will be legislation following on from this ludicrous stamping on consumer protection legislation.

nigelbb

bazster wrote: »

Hmmm, lemme see.

- Faking timestamps to make it look like people overstayed when they hadn't;

- Issuing charges for overstays to people who actually visited twice, and refusing to cancel them;

- Issuing camera-generated tickets to motorcycles, even though this is impossible because they only have a rear number plate (they present the daylight photo of the rear number plate as the "in" photo, and an infra-red photo from a later visit as the "out" photo; because only the number plate is visible in the IR photo, you can't see that it's the rear of the vehicle again);

- Ticketing people for overstays when they were actually stuck in congestion trying to leave the car park;

- Ticketing people for overstays when they actually spent 30 minutes driving around looking for a space;

- Ticketing people for overstays at motorway services when the "in" and "out" photos are on opposite carriageways!

- Ticketing people who simply drove past the car park, or parked in an adjacent car park;

- Ticketing cars parked on the public highway.

And many, many more sharp practices, all part of the daily routine in PPC-land.

Most of the PPC abuses as listed above could be stopped if current ANPR systems were banned as an enforcement mechanism. It is after all fundamentally flawed as it can never accurately measure the time the car is actually parked. It is forbidden for council enforcement.

There are schemes that would ensure fairness for the motorist but little profit for the PPCs e.g. exit barriers as per most multi-storey car parks or shutting the gate at night when the car park owner doesn't want peple using the car park.

bod1467

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, this is still a current urgent matter for the DCLG. There will be legislation following on from this ludicrous stamping on consumer protection legislation.

The current government introduced the new CRA. M'Learned Numpties rode roughshod over it. I would see that the current government might have an incentive to put M'Learned Numpties in their place.

bod1467

nigelbb wrote: »

Most of the PPC abuses as listed above could be stopped if current ANPR systems were banned as an enforcement mechanism. It is after all fundamentally flawed as it can never accurately measure the time the car is actually parked. It is forbidden for council enforcement.

There are schemes that would ensure fairness for the motorist but little profit for the PPCs e.g. exit barriers as per most multi-storey car parks or shutting the gate at night when the car park owner doesn't want peple using the car park.

Devil's Advocate ... how do barriers provide a more accurate representation of parking time than ANPR cameras? (Other than the obvious ... you have 10 minutes to exit the car park after paying, assuming you pay on exit. But even ANPR camera schemes can offer this methodology - a car park managed by ECP in East Kilbride does this).

HO87

I agree that the DCLG has indicated an intention to intervene but I wonder if even they anticipated the scale of the revision the SC might bring into being?

I willing admit that I had suspected that Barry would lose but I believed - foolishly as it now turns out - that given the fairly unusual circumstances that applied at Riverside the SC would manage to construct a judgment that allowed PE to win but in a tightly constrained way. I did not for a moment think they would do what they have done.

To revise this judgment is I suggest a far more complicated task than simply kicking PPC's into line. This is why I have suggested that as things now stand if there is be any swift intervention it will be to prevent any excesses with a Statutory Instument based in POFA but that will not in any way address the wider ramifications of the judgment. It is my view that only primary legislation is going to be able to deal with that. As a consequence what we might call "full" intervention is going to be some way off if ever.

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, this is still a current urgent matter for the DCLG. There will be legislation following on from this ludicrous stamping on consumer protection legislation.

Although DCLG now has a bigger problem than it expected. It believed it was going to be addressing the issue of private parking company excesses, but the issue is now one of a much broader assault on consumer protection.

Will DCLG press on with its plans for bringing the private parking "industry" to order, or will this get subsumed in the wider issue of where consumer protection in general stands now that the Supreme Court has savaged it? The latter would be the remit of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and if they decide to look at reinstating the protections swept away by the SC it's gonna take forever!

Coupon-mad

That this occurred in National Consumer week is an insult, an embarrassment and shameful by the Judges (except for Lord Toulson who TOTALLY understood it).

Herzlos

bod1467 wrote: »

Devil's Advocate ... how do barriers provide a more accurate representation of parking time than ANPR cameras? (Other than the obvious ... you have 10 minutes to exit the car park after paying, assuming you pay on exit. But even ANPR camera schemes can offer this methodology - a car park managed by ECP in East Kilbride does this).

Fair point - it'll still cause problems if there's a delay leaving the car park, but it avoids a lot of the other issues like double-dips and under/overpaying.