Have we heard this all before?

fisherjim

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4829350/Cowboy-firms-banned-doling-100-fines.html

pappa_golf

1: Motorists are currently threatened with bailiff visits if they fail to pay up

only if an appeal has failed court action has taken place , the motorist lost and did not pay up

2: Unregulated firms are currently using underhand tactics to maximise profits

umm, name one please daily mail?



daily mail , nuff said, not worth reading

beamerguy

fisherjim wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4829350/Cowboy-firms-banned-doling-100-fines.html

Who on here has told the Daily Mail our little secret:rotfl::rotfl:

Fruitcake

On the one hand the article repeatedly calls them fines but in another part they say they aren't fines. *sigh*

Then there are the usual loonies saying, just ignore it, I did and it's all gone away.

*shakes head*

I gave up signing in to newspaper accounts to respond to articles like this years ago. The rubbish the majority of people spout in the comments section is astounding and quite frankly I can't be bothered to try and correct such ignorance any more.

trisontana

There is a similar article in the Times today. At least they don't call them fines and it's quite a good article. One strange thing though- the article claims that a lot of parking companies "rent plots of land in city centres and charge motorists for parking there. Untrue. Apart from a couple of exceptions (NCP comes to mind), most PPCs are just working as third-party agents for either land owners or stores and are not land owners.

Coupon-mad

Now is the time for everyone who has fallen victim to a PPC scam - whether you beat them or not - to complain to your MP in writing, so that when the Bill works its way through Parliament, most MPs will know EXACTLY what sort of cowboy scam it is designed to cull/restrict.

We can't leave any MP in doubt as to why this Bill is needed, and properly independent appeals.

Need them all on song for the consumer, on this one.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Now is the time for everyone who has fallen victim to a PPC scam - whether you beat them or not - to complain to your MP in writing, so that when the Bill works its way through Parliament, most MPs will know EXACTLY what sort of cowboy scam it is designed to cull/restrict.

We can't leave any MP in doubt as to why this Bill is needed, and properly independent appeals.

Need them all on song for the consumer, on this one.

100% .. the MP's must be asked direct ... will you support the bill
or not ..... answer required

Culling these cowboys means 3 strikes and you are out forever.

Culling the two pretend ATA's ... IPC/IAS and the BPA
is most important. Both have proved that self regulation
has failed

bargepole

The Bill is shown on the Parliament website here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-1...ofpractice.html

It has already had its first reading in the Commons, and the second reading is scheduled for 02/02/2018. This is what is known as a 'handout bill', which means it has Government support, but not enough space to fit into the Government's legislation timetable, so they get a back bench MP to bring it in as a Private Member's Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to replace the Codes of Practice of both the BPA and IPC with a regulatory Code of Practice administered by a Government department, who will also have a means of imposing meaningful sanctions against PPCs who are in breach of the Code.

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

The Bill is shown on the Parliament website here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-1...ofpractice.html

It has already had its first reading in the Commons, and the second reading is scheduled for 02/02/2018. This is what is known as a 'handout bill', which means it has Government support, but not enough space to fit into the Government's legislation timetable, so they get a back bench MP to bring it in as a Private Member's Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to replace the Codes of Practice of both the BPA and IPC with a regulatory Code of Practice administered by a Government department, who will also have a means of imposing meaningful sanctions against PPCs who are in breach of the Code.

So, does this mean that the IPC and BPA will lose control
if the CoP is administered by government

Your link above does not work

bargepole

beamerguy wrote: »

So, does this mean that the IPC and BPA will lose control
if the CoP is administered by government

Your link above does not work

PPCs will still need to belong to the BPA or IPC to get keeper data from the DVLA.

But the ATAs will no longer be the arbiters of whether a PPC has breached the code, and what sanctions are applicable. This is what Sir Greg Knight MP was referring to when he said "self-regulation hasn't worked".

Try this link. There's not much detail in the Bill at present, but the draft clauses will be published shortly before the date of the second reading:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

PPCs will still need to belong to the BPA or IPC to get keeper data from the DVLA.

But the ATAs will no longer be the arbiters of whether a PPC has breached the code, and what sanctions are applicable. This is what Sir Greg Knight MP was referring to when he said "self-regulation hasn't worked".

Try this link. There's not much detail in the Bill at present, but the draft clauses will be published shortly before the date of the second reading:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

All very interesting. So, ATA's with no CoP of their own and
no longer arbitors, simply become gatekeepers to the DVLA
especially if they introduce an independent appeals service ?
This would surely be the end of the IAS and POPLA

There would be no need for two ATA's and if there still has
to be an ATA which is not government controlled, the BPA
would be the correct choice.
The incentive for PPC's to join the IPC would be zero