Parking (Code of Practice) Bill - What Should Be In The New Code of Practice?

Umkomaas

Does anyone know who is representing 'the motorist'? Surely not the RAC Foundation? If memory serves me right, they were involved in the post-clamping consultation that has resulted in motorists' pursuit and harassment by this dreadful industry.

@bargepole - are you directly involved, or do you have inside knowledge as to who is seriously and robustly representing 'the oppressed'?

ImNoExpert

I'd like it to be the case that if someone buys, for example, a 4 hour ticket but stayed for 6 hours, they should be first given the change to pay for the extra time they used at the standard rate before a PCN is issued - either that or all car parks should be pay on leave.

Also, some guidelines on "ticket machine failure" should apply, so people can still park without paying on the day because the machines don't work, but pay the standard hourly rate charge at a later date, or a requirement that "parking is free" until the machines are working.

I'd also like to see a ban on any PPC mimicking a penalty charge by using similar yellow windscreen stickers.

I also think a public record should be readily available for each car park as to how many tickets have been issued daily / weekly, etc and how many were quashed at appeal stage.

I'm not sure if POFA will disappear and be incorporated in to the new bill, but if an NTK is sent after a NTD isn't responded to, the keeper should have the right to the discounted rate as well, because the keeper may be unaware of any charge at all.

beamerguy

This is just like Brexit whereby a lot is going on with very few people actually knowing what is going on.

The appeals service is of concern, who are they ? what expertise do they have ? just how independent will they be.

There should be a requirement that ALL PPC web sites show a clear link to the code of practice so the motorist can make a informed decision.

Currently, the majority of people have no idea about POFA2012 until they get a ticket

Sir Greg Knight should get down to grass roots and carefully listen to those who are picking up the pieces of the current scam and that is the parking forums. Members of this forum are actually the most experienced and should be listened to. Sir Greg must not expect those in government to fully understand this scam industry and we do not want another POFA2012 which the BPA spoon fed the government on and what a disaster it is

On friday in the house, the IPC was mentioned .. WHY??
The government has been told about the IPC SCAM so why are they even bothering with them ? The IPC/IAS should be closed down

As said, the two ATA's differ in their code of practice hence ONE new code.

Why have two ATA's .... what is the point, the BPA is a hapless, hopeless organisation with no control over their members and, the IPC/IAS is just a money making scam

NeilCr

Johno100 wrote: »

Why? Just a wish list.

A wish list you say

Okay then

Where there is a residents management company on a private estate it should be entirely up to the directors whether or not a parking company is introduced

:D:beer::beer::beer:

But more seriously I do not entirely agree with bargepole's point 5 as I think it's impractical

Wouldn't it be for the management company to do the canvassing?

What if there are already estate regulations/lease conditions that allow the introduction of PPCs. What overrides what?

In the real world very few owners (not residents) vote on anything or attend AGMs. Suppose an estate had a legitimate need for introducing a PPC (yes, yes I know last resort) but because of disinterest couldn't get the requisite votes. We have a problem at the moment on the edge of our land which doesn't in any way effect resident parking but can cause issues about access to the estate. How should we proceed if we don't get the 75%? That is if other methods (which we are trying/have tried) do not work

ETA. I am assuming "car park" covers other communal areas like access roads as well?

beamerguy

Wouldn't it be for the management company to do the canvassing?

Think the difference is that the PPC's could be ordered to do that within the code of practice as apposed to the MA who may or may not.

As Mrs May keeps saying ... it's the will of the people

bargepole

NeilCr wrote: »

But more seriously I do not entirely agree with bargepole's point 5 as I think it's impractical

Wouldn't it be for the management company to do the canvassing?

What if there are already estate regulations/lease conditions that allow the introduction of PPCs. What overrides what?

For your benefit, here is point 5 redrafted in a more practical way:

5. Operators wishing to issue parking charges in car parks, and associated access roads, assigned to residential locations, may only do so if either: a) the terms upon which properties are occupied under existing Leases or Tenancy agreements specifically make provision for private parking enforcement; or b) if the Landowner and/or Managing Agent has canvassed the occupiers of the properties, and at least 75% have indicated agreement to private parking enforcement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any parking charge issued to a person who can demonstrate that they are a genuine resident of the property in question, and had parked their vehicle in a space in which they were otherwise entitled to park irrespective of display of any permit, shall not be enforceable against the recipient.

NeilCr

bargepole wrote: »

For your benefit, here is point 5 redrafted in a more practical way:

5. Operators wishing to issue parking charges in car parks, and associated access roads, assigned to residential locations, may only do so if either: a) the terms upon which properties are occupied under existing Leases or Tenancy agreements specifically make provision for private parking enforcement; or b) if the Landowner and/or Managing Agent has canvassed the occupiers of the properties, and at least 75% have indicated agreement to private parking enforcement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any parking charge issued to a person who can demonstrate that they are a genuine resident of the property in question, and had parked their vehicle in a space in which they were otherwise entitled to park irrespective of display of any permit, shall not be enforceable against the recipient.

Thanks bargepole. I very much agree with most of that. Particularly the point about parking in your own space. We'll have to disagree on the 75%, though. I just think it impractical in some cases, as I said. I would go for a simple majority of those who, actually, voted.

Beamerguy. Yes I get that. I was trying to understand what would have precedence over what - bargepole has addressed this in his rework.

StaffsSW

abedegno wrote: »

Tax payable revenue from parking charge notices (minus costs) is 100%. The issuance of parking charge notices should be to dissuade violation of parking terms - not a money-making exercise.

I remember having a conversation with a certain fan of pies from the Black Country who explained that the £100 charges were very tax efficient as they were considered compensation for breach of contract, and not related to the supply of goods or services.

I think HMRC and VCS went to court over this too a few years back?

beamerguy

StaffsSW wrote: »

I remember having a conversation with a certain fan of pies from the Black Country who explained that the £100 charges were very tax efficient as they were considered compensation for breach of contract, and not related to the supply of goods or services.

I think HMRC and VCS went to court over this too a few years back?

As you know, a company can offset debts against tax,

I suspect these companies have a lorry load of fake invoices which they know they can do nothing about but as they are unpaid, they are an unpaid debt to the company

The debt collectors and legals are providing a service and as we all know, solicitors charge VAT
In respect of the fake £60 add-on, how do they account for this

The only contractual part is the base charge of £100

System

and not related to the supply of goods or services.

I think HMRC and VCS went to court over this too a few years back?

Holiday companies make a fortune from "breach of contract" when people fail to take up a holiday and lose their deposit. The VAT on it can be recovered.

AFAIK Councils lost of a slightly different issue.

PS We are digressing. @BP is there an answer to the earlier question about purpose?