Draft Advisory Code of Practice - Sir Greg Knight Bill

System

The CoP, when published, will contain all the nitty-gritty detail of what PPCs must, and must not, do. That can be revised at any time to reflect changes in the way PPCs operate, and to close off any potential loopholes.

The concept that £100 can be charge for a misdemeanor is enshrined in law (the Beavis Case). All that is happening is that the way in which it is applied and collected MAY be subject to statutory control.

As an example, bailiffs are controlled by statute. They have to apply to a court for a licence. Their fees are controlled. But the reality is that they are out there pushing the limits.

Any legislation will trim off the ends of a very wide range of behaviours.

As an aside, have you heard the one about the bailiff and the bouncer. Guess which one came off worse...

Umkomaas

The concept that £100 can be charge for a misdemeanor is enshrined in law (the Beavis Case)

I thought Beavis was £85?

POPLA seem to think that £100 is 'near enough' to the Beavis judgment to warrant PPCs charging that amount when disallowing appeals.

twhitehousescat

but £85 is not enough for a good lunch

Coupon-mad

I am pleased the Bill is progressing as expected.

But am concerned that the BPA/IPC suits will have infiltrated, smarmed around making people think they are the 'sector experts' and that the CoP will be a cobbled-together version of the existing CoPs with nothing exceptional in it.

I hate to think of a statutory CoP which adds even more weight behind PPCs, along with the poxy Beavis case and the POFA 2012, all of which smoothed the way to where we are now. Despite the words in the Houses, I despair of more sh1te and weak rubbish.

I think it will be shockingly bad. Hope I am wrong.

Umkomaas

Almost every input from each Lord suggested that the industry was largely fair and proportionate, with just a minority going rogue. Worrying take on the reality.

bargepole

IamEmanresu wrote: »

The concept that £100 can be charge for a misdemeanor is enshrined in law (the Beavis Case)...

But only enshrined as case law.

Statute Law overrides any pre-existing case law, so if the CoP said that charges must be capped at the same level as Council penalty charges (£50 everywhere except London Boroughs which are £80), then that would apply from the date the CoP came into effect.

Coupon-mad

But will it though...if there is any sniff of that, the BPA and IPC will throw their toys out of the pram and whoever is putting together the CoP may well listen.

I fear a complete farce.

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But will it though...if there is any sniff of that, the BPA and IPC will throw their toys out of the pram and whoever is putting together the CoP may well listen.

I fear a complete farce.

Well, we know that Steve Gooding (RAC Foundation) and Caroline Sheppard (TPT Chief Adjudicator) are heading up the committee drafting the CoP.

It has also been suggested in parliamentary debates in both the Commons and Lords, that parity with Council penalties is the fairest solution.

So the BPA and IPC may just have to suck it up, buttercup.

Coupon-mad

I hope so. Glad to hear that Caroline Sheppard stayed on board. Feisty lady!

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I am pleased the Bill is progressing as expected.

But am concerned that the BPA/IPC suits will have infiltrated, smarmed around making people think they are the 'sector experts' and that the CoP will be a cobbled-together version of the existing CoPs with nothing exceptional in it.

ME TOO ? Too find a new appeals service with people who are fully competent with the parking industry must be a daunting task unless they are going to use existing systems disguised ?

The IPC is a scam the government already know about and it would not look good for Sir Greg Knight if there was any connection to Gladstones IPC/IAS

Why do we need ATA's ...... government could take this role over and make money at the same time

The BPA cannot be trusted as they allow their scammers to run rife without control despite their claims that they are driving standards upwards ????? Now that is a big joke is it not BPA