Parking (Code of Practice) Bill - Passed by MPs

DoaM

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Any new appeals system/ombudsman has to be totally independent with no connection to the incumbents of the current system. That has to be at the core of the new code of practice.

That doesn't mean the "incumbents" won't try and shape the new CoP.

The_Slithy_Tove

beamerguy wrote: »

How May sorts out Brexit remains to be seen, 25 days to go but, the parking scam is an internal issue, nothing to do with Brexit and those involved such as Sir Greg Knight wants this bill through quickly, it's his baby, no Educated Guesses please

Brexit is pulling civil servants from all sorts of departments to deal with it, as well as those departments having to implement their own Brexit plans. This means that issues which have nothing to do with it will inevitably go to the back of the queue while the civil servants deal with more pressing issues.

Don't believe for one second that it'll all be done and dusted by the end of the month. Even if it happens (with no extension), there will still be huge amounts of work to do for some time. Whether budgets will allow for more staff to do both Brexit-related and Business as Usual tasks, who can tell.

The Bill may become an Act. But, like Brexit, that is only the beginning.

The legislation merely paves the way for allowing the government to create the code of practice, so don't expect anything any time soon, and beware who they "consult" in order to create that code of practice. And how much difference will it make? Knight is quoted as saying, "The clear majority of car park providers are honest and fair but unscrupulous rogues are undermining the whole sector with bad practice." The trouble is, they are not. He's probably referring to the likes of ParkingEye, which is one of the more, er, professionally operated of the parking companies. But no code of practice will stop:

• The whole ridiculous business model where they get their income only from parking charges for breaching terms of parking
• Poorly implemented ANPR leading to double-dipping
• Onerous systems of parking charges where the motorist needs to remember how long they parked, even though the "system" knows exactly that (e.g. Burton Hospital and others)
• Payment machines deliberately not handling multiple charge rates, e.g. transition from free parking at 8am or lower rate at 6pm

bargepole

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Any new appeals system/ombudsman has to be totally independent with no connection to the incumbents of the current system. That has to be at the core of the new code of practice.

As I understand it, the Bill (Act) provides for an annual levy on the ATAs (BPA and IPC) which they will presumably pass on to their members.

So the levy amounts will be paid over to Government, who will then appoint an independent body to determine appeals. I believe that a tendering process will be involved, for which cost will be one criteria, but the ability to adjudicate independently and fairly will be equally important.

beamerguy

fisherjim wrote: »

It's sad but inevitable that the very designers and perpetrators of this disgusting scam industry will also be in the consultation group, you need a Frank Field to hold them to account!

I guess Sir Greg Knight needs to be very careful as this new CoP has come about due to the mega scam.

He cannot be inviting in the same scammers to advise, prison is the only place for them for ripping off the public.

As far as the BPA goes, will they give their opinion from the Gobi desert ...... still waiting to see what the BPA means by driving up standards ??? ........ maybe we missed them with a blink of an eye

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

As I understand it, the Bill (Act) provides for an annual levy on the ATAs (BPA and IPC) which they will presumably pass on to their members.

I guess we can live with the BPA being an ATA, but why the IPC ?

Don't government understand the meaning of the word ... SCAM ??

Coupon-mad

bargepole wrote: »

As I understand it, the Bill (Act) provides for an annual levy on the ATAs (BPA and IPC) which they will presumably pass on to their members.

So the levy amounts will be paid over to Government, who will then appoint an independent body to determine appeals. I believe that a tendering process will be involved, for which cost will be one criteria, but the ability to adjudicate independently and fairly will be equally important.

Can you imagine if Wright Hassall get it?

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Can you imagine if Wright Hassall get it?

HA, old WHOPLA, that really would be the joke of the century:rotfl:

Computersaysno

The scumco clampers got "Keeper Liability if they don't name the driver" as part of doing away with clamping.....


What's to say they get "strict Keeper liability" [just like councils and DVLA] as part of this new set-up....after all 'there will be an independent appeals process in place to protect the public'.

waamo

I can see it being based very closely on a council type model. There will need to be clauses for ANPR which I can see being allowed. Other than that it's a firm footing to base a code of practice on.

Snakes_Belly

waamo wrote: »

I can see it being based very closely on a council type model. There will need to be clauses for ANPR which I can see being allowed. Other than that it's a firm footing to base a code of practice on.

IMHO the disparity between the council run car parks and the PPC's in their approach to minor transgressions causes drivers to fall foul of the PPC's.

With regard to the recent case regarding the BB that fell off the dashboard and fluttering tickets these would have been cancelled by the council upon production of a valid BB or ticket.

Whoever says that in the case of the BB that falls off the dashboard ' well they should have displayed a valid BB' should try being a full time carer for a few weeks. I hope that when the new CoP is formulated that there is input from BB holders.