Draft Advisory Code of Practice - Sir Greg Knight Bill

fisherjim

beamerguy wrote: »

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

The official line will be "we have to include all stakeholders in the discussions"

beamerguy

fisherjim wrote: »

The official line will be "we have to include all stakeholders in the discussions"

Yes, no doubt

Computersaysno

The one issue that TPT [and therefore best case any similar possible scheme for PPC scumcos] fails on is as follows.


When it rules against a council the council will simply refund the member of public BUT the council will NOT stop issuing tickets for exactly the same reason/situation.


An example that I saw recently was in Wales where the TPT found that an urban clearway TRO couldn't be used in a town centre....the bloke won. Next day the council are back out ticketing people for parking in an urban clearway.


Any TPT-scumco-equivalent needs to be able to issue 'cease and desist' orders to scumcos.....that's the way to see real improvement.

Coupon-mad

That's a good point.

henrik777

Computersaysno wrote: »

The one issue that TPT [and therefore best case any similar possible scheme for PPC scumcos] fails on is as follows.


When it rules against a council the council will simply refund the member of public BUT the council will NOT stop issuing tickets for exactly the same reason/situation.


An example that I saw recently was in Wales where the TPT found that an urban clearway TRO couldn't be used in a town centre....the bloke won. Next day the council are back out ticketing people for parking in an urban clearway.


Any TPT-scumco-equivalent needs to be able to issue 'cease and desist' orders to scumcos.....that's the way to see real improvement.

I guess that depends on whether you're a campaigner or trying to get people off their tickets.

The consequence of a good campaign is that things are improved and if that improvement is significant it's much harder to get off a ticket on appeal.

Computersaysno

henrik777 wrote: »

I guess that depends on whether you're a campaigner or trying to get people off their tickets.

The consequence of a good campaign is that things are improved and if that improvement is significant it's much harder to get off a ticket on appeal.

I have no idea what you're on about.

The_Deep

He makes perfect sense to me.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0470057521/ref=asc_df_047005752158142110/?!!!!!googshopuk-21&creative=22110&creativeASIN=0470057521&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310977525294&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9118898680049912245&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046121&hvtargid=pla-458541699771&th=1&psc=1

Computersaysno

The_Deep wrote: »

He makes perfect sense to me.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0470057521/ref=asc_df_047005752158142110/?!!!!!googshopuk-21&creative=22110&creativeASIN=0470057521&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310977525294&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9118898680049912245&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046121&hvtargid=pla-458541699771&th=1&psc=1

What did you say???!!!


Do you want to say that again mate???


Dare you to say it to my face!!!


Come one then...outside!!!!

The_Deep

The pen is my weapon sir. I challenge you to a sonnet.

bargepole

Now now children, calm down.

The point being made here is that IF the CoP spells out precisely the requirements that must be met for signage, wording of PCN, wording of NTK, deadline dates etc., and IF the PPC has fully complied with all of it, then it's likely that successful appeals will be that much harder to achieve.

But that's a lot of 'IFs'. After all, POFA has been around for over 6 years, and many PPCs are unable to comply with that, and many others don't even bother to try, and rely on rubbish such as Elliot v Loake etc.