Recent legislation - what difference might it make?

[Deleted User]

None.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/24/lords-urged-hurry-legislation-cracking-cowboy-parking-firms/


This will not affect the way the likes of Parking Eye operate one jot!


At best, it will put a handful of operators out of business - probably the ones that it's easiest to beat at the moment anyway.

KeithP

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

None.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/24/lords-urged-hurry-legislation-cracking-cowboy-parking-firms/


This will not affect the way the likes of Parking Eye operate one jot!


At best, it will put a handful of operators out of business - probably the ones that it's easiest to beat at the moment anyway.

Well if we are dealing in opinions, my opinion is different to yours.

With a common Code of Practice, all operators will need to up their game if they want to survive.

[Deleted User]

KeithP wrote: »

Well if we are dealing in opinions, my opinion is different to yours.

With a common Code of Practice, all operators will need to up their game if they want to survive.

But how will this affect Parking Eye, the biggest operator? And crucially, how will it affect one's ability to win against Parking Eye? Yes, they might have to up their game in some respects, but the upshot could be that it's even harder to challenge them.

KeithP

Earlier you said:

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

This will not affect the way the likes of Parking Eye operate one jot!

Now revised to:

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Yes, they might have to up their game in some respects...

Redx

well , for a start it may mean that PE will have to allow more leeway with GRACE PERIODS than their current timmy tightpants stance !!

it may mean they will have to obtain lease docs for any hired or leased or company vehicle before sending them to the hirer or lessee

it might mean they need to up their game on SIGNAGE to match the one they beat BEAVIS on

it might mean they need to add the landowner or M.A. details on any NTK and on the signs , so meaning they have to be more transparent

they may have to show their contract to operate on any land they manage

it may mean they have to be more lenient if they operate on a hospital car park

etc


the next lords session is this tuesday, the 26th feb 2019

Johno100

You can add obtaining planning permission and advertising consent to that list. Something they routinely ignore until they are caught out about it.

[Deleted User]

All good stuff, but I remain to be convinced that the man in the street (or the car) will not be hounded as he is at the moment. I suspect these scammers will still be going strong well into the future, until such time - if ever - that those parasites at the DVLA are banned from releasing keeper details to the scammers.

Redx

well that will never happen and nobody has ever said it will happen

to add to my list , I will say that it is likely that the DVLA will have to do more checks on the "reasonable cause" aspect of this, especially due to GDPR once the new CoP is in place

this may be especially true for NOT RELEVANT LAND like railway stations , airports and ports, because under POFA2012 the RK has no liability, so in theory should never be notified or have their details accessed

so I suspect that this aspect will be tightened up a lot , stopping VCS and INDIGO and APCOA and CARE PARKING etc from flaunting it like they do now

plus I believe that charges will be in place for anyone issuing an appeal code that is used, stopping people like APCOA thorwing the towel in at the last minute and getting away with it


they may even define the word PARKING , stopping UKPPO and VCS etc from sending out tickets for a 30 second STOP event on a road, relevant road on non relevant road

beamerguy

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

All good stuff, but I remain to be convinced that the man in the street (or the car) will not be hounded as he is at the moment. I suspect these scammers will still be going strong well into the future, until such time - if ever - that those parasites at the DVLA are banned from releasing keeper details to the scammers.

Well, Sir Greg is the only MP to take the scam seriously

When the bill is law it should mean that master cowboys being Parking Eye will have to bow down and obey.

Failing that, there is a piece of grass opposite Westminster where there is room for a scaffold, where MP's can be hung, drawn and quartered

But you should know that the scam has been taken over by Gladstones and BWLegal, parasites who fail the legal industry

We may have to wait until the May woman resigns or is kicked out but that won't be long ?

The_Deep

No-one has mentioned a totally new appeal system. If one is set up rather like that with proper PCNs it could massively effect them.

I was issued with a PCN by the local council. It was near a doctors surgery, and the only place to parking was in a residents only space.

This was before I had my hip replacement and I had severe difficulty walking, and I displayed a BB. I appealed on EA Grounds, the council refused, and it went to the adjudicator.

The adjudicator allowed my appeal within minutes on a technicality, my long and erudite defence was not even heard. I was most put out and tore several strips of the Council's solicitor for wasting taxpayers' money. I had hoped that my appeal would have been turned down as I was ready to take the council to the court for disability discrimination.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

No-one has mentioned a totally new appeal system. If one is set up rather like that with proper PCNs it could massively effect them.

See Bargepole's post #135

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5891794/draft-advisory-code-of-practice-sir-greg-knight-bill&page=7

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.