Draft Advisory Code of Practice - Sir Greg Knight Bill

Umkomaas

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 ?

'Old' POPLA wouldn't be a bad starting point. At least the majority of the assessors understood relevant laws (as they were legally trained) and those that initially struggled were soon trained by [STRIKE]the forums[/STRIKE] their peers.

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

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.

Caroline Sheppard ... a good fair lady, she ruled against Brighton and Newbury councils so I won. She would not put up with the rubbish that POPLA and the Scam IPC/IAS do

Maybe light at the end of the tunnel yet

twhitehousescat

beamerguy wrote: »

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

but in the case of indigo , you just create your own

Coupon-mad

The PATAS /TPT Model would be fantastic.

It's complicated, takes all circumstances and relevant statutory requirements into account to the letter, and is generally very critical of any failure by Councils in evidence (except in cases of 'substantial compliance', which are a bummer).

And - none of the PPCs would understand it.

I do worry that residential sites, Motorway Services, Hospital sites, and those penalties by the likes of Indigo at railways will need special attention in the CoP.

So will Equality Act issues, lack of reasonable adjustments, etc.

I worry that those making the rules might not realise that.

And will they understand that (unlike with Council ones) unfairness and the penalty rule are part and parcel of parking/contract law, not just whether the PCN and signage dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's?

Umkomaas

Is there anyone fully representing 'our' side on the committee developing the CoP?

If I remember correctly, the RAC Foundation made a complete mess of representing the motorist in the fall out immediately after PoFA (or was it in the drafting of PoFA?). Whichever (or otherwise) I think they did gash up to the detriment of the motorist.

Is there anyone, a bit further away from Alzheimer's than me, who can remember the detail?

bargepole

Umkomaas wrote: »

Is there anyone fully representing 'our' side on the committee developing the CoP?

If I remember correctly, the RAC Foundation made a complete mess of representing the motorist in the fall out immediately after PoFA (or was it in the drafting of PoFA?). Whichever (or otherwise) I think they did gash up to the detriment of the motorist.

Is there anyone, a bit further away from Alzheimer's than me, who can remember the detail?

This whole Bill came about partly as a result of various meetings that I and others had with senior officials at what was then the DCLG. The only reason it didn't go into the official Government legislative timetable was because they were overwhelmed with other matters (the dreaded B word again).

So they had to find a backbench MP to sponsor the Bill, and Sir Greg willingly stepped forward, which is why we are where we are today.

This is completely different from the run up to the introduction of POFA, where the DfT relied entirely on the lies that the BPA told them. Many civil servants are still embarrassed by that, which is why the BPA and IPC are in a minority on the committee drafting the CoP, and can be outvoted by the majority of members representing consumer interests.

Umkomaas

Many civil servants are still embarrassed by that, which is why the BPA and IPC are in a minority on the committee drafting the CoP, and can be outvoted by the majority of members representing consumer interests

Good to hear that they are still about and have not been shipped off to the colonies or on to something tastily index-linked.

So they had to find a backbench MP to sponsor the Bill, and Sir Greg willingly stepped forward, which is why we are where we are today.

You must have had quite a bit of input with him as his 'knowledge' seems more well advanced than your average man on a Clapham omnibus!

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

This is completely different from the run up to the introduction of POFA, where the DfT relied entirely on the lies that the BPA told them. Many civil servants are still embarrassed by that, which is why the BPA and IPC are in a minority on the committee drafting the CoP, and can be outvoted by the majority of members representing consumer interests.

This is the difficult part to understand ....... why the hell is the BPA still in the picture, and why is the IPC involved ???

The IPC was set up to scam the motorist by Gladstones. Everyone and anyone with an ounce of sense can see this, why are the government and those embarrassed civil servants still talking to them when Action Fraud should be investigating

twhitehousescat

because they cannot publicly say the IPC is a scam , bill n ben will have emm in court

beamerguy

twhitehousescat wrote: »

because they cannot publicly say the IPC is a scam , bill n ben will have emm in court

Not saying that ? question is why are the IPC in the conversation anyway ?