Fifth Edition of the IPC’s Code of Practice

DoaM

Herzlos wrote: »

So that means you've got an additional set-aside or expenses point when the send stuff to an old address? Or does it just encourage them to issue proceedings at 51 weeks?

The point is that the quoted clause has been removed. The previous code may have been an incentive to file at 51 weeks; now IPC members don't even have to check at all, regardless of how old the PCN is.

Umkomaas

safarmuk wrote: »

Wow, so the rules appear to be made up by people that own the PPCs and the people that own the Solicitors that do the litigation for the PPCs ...

Will Hurley The IPC
John Davies Gladstones Solicitors
Andrew Fitton ParkShield
Ashley Bijster Imperial Civil Enforcement Solutions
James de Savary Napier Parking
Simon Renshaw Smith VCS and Excel
Dyl Kurpil District Enforcement
Gareth Brierley Debt Recovery Plus
Fiona Macey University of York
Kevin McManus (aka 'bouncy Kev') AS Parking

There you go - what a fine upstanding group.

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

Will Hurley The IPC
John Davies Gladstones Solicitors
Andrew Fitton ParkShield
Ashley Bijster Imperial Civil Enforcement Solutions
James de Savary Napier Parking
Simon Renshaw Smith VCS and Excel
Dyl Kurpil District Enforcement
Gareth Brierley Debt Recovery Plus
Fiona Macey University of York
Kevin McManus (aka 'bouncy Kev') AS Parking

There you go - what a fine upstanding group.

The UK financial terrorists

Let us hope that whichever government is elected, there is
a cull on these scammers

Very surprised not to see Marcus Jones (MP) in the list ???

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

Will Hurley The IPC
John Davies Gladstones Solicitors
Andrew Fitton ParkShield
Ashley Bijster Imperial Civil Enforcement Solutions
James de Savary Napier Parking
Simon Renshaw Smith VCS and Excel
Dyl Kurpil District Enforcement
Gareth Brierley Debt Recovery Plus
Fiona Macey University of York
Kevin McManus (aka 'bouncy Kev') AS Parking

There you go - what a fine upstanding group.

Woah, what a line-up.

Dyl Kurpil is used to certain bottom-feeding *levels of Society* from his previous job.

pappa_golf

I wonder after PP showing it "Before issuing court proceedings on any unpaid parking charge which is over 12 months old, the operator must first perform a suitable check of the defendant’s last known address." people will make formal complaints to the IPC and use that statement (breaking ATA code of practice) in cases of set asides

System

UPDATE:

Seems the version that was published earlier was a draft and a new version (v6.1) has been uploaded. Changes are as before with the exception that this

It is suggested the maximum parking charge should be: £100. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage and/or other documentation


has now been expanded to read

Parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage and/or other documentation.

Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated.

Before issuing court proceedings on any unpaid parking charge which is over 12 months old, the operator must first perform a suitable check of the defendant’s last known address.

See page 33 on the new version here http://docdro.id/5Gga0PD

MothballsWallet

Umkomaas wrote: »

It will need to be £166.66 for a 40% reduction to bring it down to £100!

Why not, eh? After all, it's now only a 'suggested' figure. Who'll be first to break rank? A big one, or a small-fry to test the water. No doubt a meeting at High Leigh Park Golf Club is imminent!

Nah, I'd say they'll meet at a house of ill repute - that way they can meet with Tories to get more special treatment in Acts of Parliament

hoohoo

It appears they are having trouble on their site.

https://theipc.info/accredited-operator-scheme

The CoP link doesn't work for me.

fisherjim

"Where there is a prospect of additional charges......."

Yep that line sums this whole scam industry up in one!

beamerguy

has now been expanded to read

Parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage and/or other documentation.

Anything more than £100 would rather null and void the Supreme Court re Beavis
I suppose the IPC scammer members will be looking to add
further charges ... maybe uniforms, tea breaks, electricity to run
the flawed ANPR system etc ?


Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated.

Does this mean the PPC can add £60 before they pass it to the likes of scammers such as DRP who will add a further £60

Before issuing court proceedings on any unpaid parking charge which is over 12 months old, the operator must first perform a suitable check of the defendant’s last known address.

So, a "suitable check" will be available for the courts to see then

The scam grows BIGGER AND BIGGER