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

Loadsofchildren123

The thorny ANPR issue certainly needs addressing in some way. The technology is clearly available, eg in airport carparks.


What about providing for an automatic cancellation of a residential pcn once a recipient has produced proof that they are a resident?


Absolutely agree with the poster who said the language should compel compliance, rather than invite - "must" not "may" etc.

bargepole

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

What about providing for an automatic cancellation of a residential pcn once a recipient has produced proof that they are a resident?

Already covered in post #17 of this thread.

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

I once stopped on a double yellow, while collecting an order from the local Chinese takeaway.

A liveried police car pulled up behind me, and two big fat coppers followed me into the shop, to order a load of sweet & sour pork and chow mien to stuff their faces with.

When I returned to the car, there was a PCN on the screen, but not on the police car.

I pointed out this inconsistency, and the fact that the police were not above the law, in my appeal to the Council. Their response was that police officers need to be near their vehicle at all times, as they may need to respond quickly to an emergency call.

I had the same BP, not a ticket for me but I thought the cop car was pulling me up .... non of it they wanted a kebab, double yellows as well. In the shop, they did tell their control they had stopped for food. That's OK with me and their car was right outside ready for the next call out

NeilCr

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I

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.

Which was entirely what I was thinking about when I made my comment. I am no lover of the 75% rule at all but get why it is there and the legislation that covers it. But, there are instances as you describe and others, like the one we have at the moment where introducing a PPC would have no effect on residents , that are, as you suggest probably outside of this.

Bargepole's draft says 75% for the introduction of a PPC without qualification. I know it's difficult to cover everything and I am being more than a little bit "nit picky" but these are the sort of things which need to be clear when submitting proposals.

It does also point up the problems of trying to marry up two bits of legislation.

Guys_Dad

NeilCr wrote: »

. I know it's difficult to cover everything and I am being more than a little bit "nit picky" but these are the sort of things which need to be clear when submitting proposals.

It does also point up the problems of trying to marry up two bits of legislation.

No problem at all. Any parking legislation needs to follow existing legislation, which is quite clear.

And I doubt whether or not any existing PPC contract would have the escape clauses for leaseholders that I made in my previous post.

NeilCr

Guys_Dad wrote: »

No problem at all. Any parking legislation needs to follow existing legislation, which is quite clear.

And I doubt whether or not any existing PPC contract would have the escape clauses for leaseholders that I made in my previous post.

I am sure you are right about existing contracts but I was looking to the future and the new legislation. And the landscape for introducing PPCs to an estate. It's something that is exercising us at the moment with regards to rogue parking on a small piece of our land.

Fair comment on legislation but I'll stand by my view on the overall statement about the 75% not being right for every case when introducing a PPC on to a residential estate. I think we agree on that don't we?

ETA

Guys Dad. Genuinely sorry. I misread your first reply to me . I can only blame a long day and a couple of glasses of red wine in France! I try not to go back and delete or edit posts (other than to add or explain as I have done here) so I'll leave this. As I will my previous reply. But best to ignore! :beer::beer:



But I do stand by what I have said in my subsequent reply to C_M.. I do believe there are parking situations on residential estates where the L and T Act need not apply . And if we can have (and that is down to ManCos and MAs to ensure) the right contracts in the new landscape then all the better

Coupon-mad

I have to disagree, NeilCr.

Introducing a PPC and altering people's own home lease terms to allow a scam that people do not realise will come back to bite them, is so onerous to residents that you can't water down the L&T Act just because it's inconvenient/difficult to reach the high bar needed to amend a lease. Don't go there, then.

PPCs should be banned from all residential sites IMHO, but I know you disagree.

NeilCr

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I have to disagree, NeilCr.

Introducing a PPC and altering people's own home lease terms to allow a scam that people do not realise will come back to bite them, is so onerous to residents that you can't water down the L&T Act just because it's inconvenient/difficult to reach the high bar needed to amend a lease.

PPCs should be banned from all residential sites IMHO, but I know you disagree.

I am not trying to water down the L and T Act. I just think there are situations where the introduction of a PPC will not, necessarily, affect residents and/or will need a lease variation

Take us, at the moment. We have a small piece of land outside our gates which we own and leads to the public highway. There is a school opposite and the teachers and the school minibus have taken to parking on this land and obstructing the gates. We have put up bollards and painted yellow lines - which worked (the yellow lines that is) until someone jet washed them! - the school also complained about the lines to the Highways Authority.

We are going to the school tomorrow to discuss and we are nowhere near a PPC at the moment. But, it has been mooted as an option purely for this piece of land. No residents park there. Are you saying we should go through the L and T Act process in a case such as this? Genuinely interested.

And, as you know I don't like PPCs on residential land - nor does our MA. But, I can see some situations where, as a last resort, they could be useful. And I, personally, would always go self ticketing. Banning them completely I don't agree with. Ensuring they act properly, that MAs and ManCos can cancel any tickets, that contracts are clear and unambiguous about ticketing residents cars and that there are penalties if they do - yes. I am afraid, sadly, that there are some very selfish parkers who will not be deterred by anything other than being hit in the pocket.

twhitehousescat

buy some signs, and buy a clamp , as the land is private , buy an old banger and clamp it for a day or so

NeilCr

twhitehousescat wrote: »

buy some signs, and buy a clamp , as the land is private , buy an old banger and clamp it for a day or so

Which we will likely try as we have a dummy clamp. Suspect the school might know the rules about clamping though!. And yes signs - as I said we are a way away from a PPC

It's more about whether folks think we would have to invoke the L and T Act in such a situation if we decided to introduce a PPC for this piece of land.