Draft Advisory Code of Practice - Sir Greg Knight Bill

Computersaysno

The_Deep wrote: »

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

Surely you mean that the keyboard is your weapon? [Granted that it's not anywhere as near poetic]

Sonnet...Shakespearean or Petrarchan??


And yes I had to google these...hats off if you didn't!!

henrik777

bargepole wrote: »

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.

True to an extent however POFA doesn't have to be followed as is pretty clear from a few losing cases. Obviously those are against the will of parliament or 1. They wouldn't have brought POFA in, 2. This new bill wouldn't be coming in either.


The new bill has to be followed or they're screwed. (I'm sure they'll try to wriggle...)

beamerguy

henrik777 wrote: »

The new bill has to be followed or they're screwed. (I'm sure they'll try to wriggle...)

I am sure they will still screw themselves anyway.

We will be watching, with one thing in mind ... scuppering

bargepole

Viscount Astor has tabled an amendment to the Bill, to be considered by the Lords Committee scrutinising the detail.

Currently, Section 7(2) says:

"The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of enabling or facilitating persons to act in accordance with that guidance, enter into an agreement with any person who appears to the Secretary of State to be so independent for that person to deal with parking appeals."

The amendment proposed is that "may" should be replaced with "must". I can't see anyone in the Lords objecting to that.

If passed, this opens the door for a new appeals service, completely independent of the BPA or IPC.

It will mean that the POPLA assessors can go back to looking at gas bills, and the IAS can return their herd of kangaroos to Chester Zoo.

waamo

.It will mean that the POPLA assessors can go back to looking at gas bills, and the IAS can return their herd of kangaroos to Chester Zoo

It's a mob of kangaroos.

onlyfoolsandparking

Its either of those, Herd or Mob or even Troop

waamo

onlyfoolsandparking wrote: »

Its either of those, Herd or Mob or even Troop

It's a mob, troop or court. Never a herd. Being of an old vintage myself mob is the correct term.

beamerguy

It will mean that the POPLA assessors can go back to looking at gas bills, and the IAS can return their herd of kangaroos to Chester Zoo.

How delightful .... will have to look up the feeding times at Chester Zoo