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

Umkomaas

bargepole wrote: »

No, he's a 6'2" rugby player, and a bit too wide for a child seat.

I'd be rather careful trying to force him into it then!

twhitehousescat

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'd be rather careful trying to force him into it then!

I suspect that at 6ft 2in and rugby player the "goon" may be reluctant to start writing a ticket

Coupon-mad

Just had a thought about Excel v Ambler and the other recent case, where I was told that Excel were held to have allegedly altered a VRN list. The new SAS needs a way for so-called data from VRN machines, and whitelists, to by signed & verified by say, an engineer and countersigned by a Director of the company. Needed because they look like word documents anyone could mock up.

And no letting scumbag PPCs issue POPLA-style codes so they can pretend they did, when they didn't.

Reiterating the earlier idea that the SAS generate the 'appeal' code once the person logs in to start an appeal using their VRN and PCN within 12 months of the rejection letter date. And they must accept them by post too.

If the system can't cope with that level of burden, then let's say a PPC must reissue the 'code' if a person says they didn't receive it, and that must be the case for at least 12 months from the rejection letter.

bargepole

twhitehousescat wrote: »

that IS quick
what time span before the next reading , have you any ideas?

Recommended minimum intervals between the stages of a bill:

7.03 The following minimum intervals between stages of public bills should be observed:[242]

(a) two weekends between the first reading (whether of a new bill or one brought from the Commons) and the debate on second reading;

(b) fourteen days between second reading and the start of the committee stage;

(c) on all bills of considerable length and complexity, fourteen days between the end of the committee stage and the start of the report stage;

(d) three sitting days between the end of the report stage and third reading

Coupon-mad

Another one to consider, as we know ANPR timers are not synchronised with the PDT machines, and PDT machines fail to work properly, is how to hold PPCs to account to prove that their systems were working and the ANPR clocks were all synchronised and matched with the PDT machine clock?

We need a robust SAS that will not just take their word for it like POPLA do. After all, it's a loophole PPCs can exploit, so stop them.

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Another one to consider, as we know ANPR timers are not synchronised with the PDT machines, and PDT machines fail to work properly, is how to hold PPCs to account to prove that their systems were working and the ANPR clocks were all synchronised and matched with the PDT machine clock?

We need a robust SAS that will not just take their word for it like POPLA do. After all, it's a loophole PPCs can exploit, so stop them.

I believe this was covered in para. 4 of my OP:

4. Where validation of parking is required by entry of registration number into a terminal or machine, it must not be possible to enter an invalid registration number, or the registration number of a vehicle which is not physically present in the parking area.

So it would be mandatory for the ANPR to be linked to the PDT, meaning that motorists could only enter a reg. no. which had already been detected by the ANPR cameras. This should probably also say that the 'period of parking' begins when payment is made at the PDT, and not when the camera is passed.

Guys_Dad

NeilCr wrote: »

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?

If a PPC is being brought in and there are possible restrictions, such as permits, being imposed that could mean charges to leaseholders for non compliance, then that is a variation to their lease. If believe courts have already accepted that and a catch all clause about the management company being allowed to make such changes does not apply.

In that case, then Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is quite specific. It says "Where a majority of the leaseholders agree to the proposed variation, the Tribunal has a discretionary power to make any variation under s. 37 of the Act. However, if there are less than 9 leases all or all but one of the parties must consent and if there are more than 8 leases, 75% of the parties must consent and not more than 10% must not object to the proposed variation. As most variations have winners and losers, this degree of consensus is hard to achieve."

I can see no reason for proposed parking legislation to dilute this leaseholder protection, however inconvenient it may be to obtain the 75% consensus.

If a contract with a PPC entitled any leaseholder to be excused any charges or penalties not covered by the lease for failure to display permits or similar transgressions, or any visitors correctly using spaces leased to leaseholders then that may not trigger a lease variation and a PPC could be brought in.

Johno100

KeithP wrote: »

We need something in the CoP about not ticketing Ambulances.

And similar rules about other emergency services - extending to health care professionals going about their business.

I assume you mean not ticketing them when on a call not just stopping for lunch?

Umkomaas

Johno100 wrote: »

I assume you mean not ticketing them when on a call not just stopping for lunch?

...... tick, tock, tick tock .....!

beamerguy

Johno100 wrote: »

I assume you mean not ticketing them when on a call not just stopping for lunch?

When they are in control of an ambulance they are on call
throughout their shift