Private Parking Code of Practice - Public Consultation

Umkomaas

For information (and for what it's worth), The NoToMob forum is reporting from an unconfirmed source that the public consultation period could be from 28 July to 25 August. As I've read nothing elsewhere, I thought I'd just link this here as a bit of a heads up. 

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=6227.0

Fruitcake

Perhaps we should start to collate a list of things we want addressed. I'll start, and update this post as more ideas are suggested by other posters, assuming Umkomaas has no objection.
I'm assuming that some of these ideas will be included in the draft CoP.

1) Anyone can appeal on anyone's behalf with authorisation so parking companies can't refuse to deal with third parties
A driver can appeal a notice without the need for a liability transfer first...… 

2) Use of ANPR should be prohibited or restricted to bring it in line with Local Authority PCNs

Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 paragraph 87 as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015 section 53 (*addition of paragraph 87a *) allows for certain types of equipment to be prohibited.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/part/6 

The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions, published in 2016 requires all devices to be approved by the Secretary of State for Transport, as well as limiting their use.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873752/statutory-guidance-local-authorities-enforcement-parking-contraventions-document.pdf

or 
Far more regulation and control of ANPR cameras. If ANPR is being used a separate larger sign with a symbol of a camera on the same pole as entrance sign.
Synchronisation of clocks between PDT & ANPR (where used) to be mandatory and be part of the audits carried out so assiduously by BPA & IPC.  Clocks to be checked on a pre-determined schedule (daily/weekly, certainly no more than monthly) against a British standard.
Parking times to start from when the vehicle is parked, not when it passes a scamera.
No pay in advance parking regimes, anywhere that ANPR is in use .
Pay on return to the car park, by selecting your car and being told the EXACT tariff due at that point. You pay, and leave. "None of this pay within x minutes crap."

3) Banning of MNPR - the Manual Number Plate Recognition misnomer as an excuse to grab keeper details early. 

4) PCNs should be renamed, and the colour of any NTD or "wrapper" should be changed so it cannot be confused with a Council one. (suggestions on what they should be called please)

5) The name and contact details of the landowner should be included on every PCN. Landholder/MA should also be included where applicable.

6) Proof of standing with a copy of a valid contract with or flowing from the landowner to the PPC with each and every appeal.

7) There should be two grace periods, one before the parking period starts and one when it ends.

8) Appeals/ADR should be available for up to one year in accordance with the ADR Act. Appeals to be heard by a truly independent body (no member of a parking company or parking trade body can be an assessor). Assessors must be qualified/accredited to a government/BSI standard, ideally legally qualified.

or,
Time limit for appeals should be increased to 5 years in Scotland and Six years in England to bring it in line with the time limit for making court claims.

9) The PCN should clearly state whether an NTK is relying on the PoFA or not, and also it should clearly state that there is no legal requirement to name the driver. Also that the keeper has protections in law that the driver does not.

10) More control and regulation around self ticketing, including formal training courses for self ticketers. 

11) The blurring of the edges of the description 'Parking' to be controlled and regulated - no stopping, no entry, no waiting, leaving the site (or any other 'trap' ideas PPCs can conjure up). Parking to be specifically defined, for example as per the case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Services.
PCNs must not be issued for stopping to attend to a small vicissitude (changing a wheel or nappy, checking warning lights), turning round, nor for loading and unloading, alighting and drop off of passengers etcetera.

12) Penalties for PPCs who put people through hoops (appeal, LBC, Court Claim etc) then withdraw at the last moment. 

13) Time cost award to the motorist if the PPC contests an appeal to the new independent appeal board that is upheld in favour of the motorist.

14) Penalty award to the motorist for repeated " residents own parking space" PCN

15) Make stores and landlords have responsibility for the action of their chosen parking management company . Financial penalty for them for failures of their management company.

16) Requirements for a national standard for "tamper proof " ticketing devices. Remove any chance of dates/times/images being edited after the event

17) Standardisation of car park signage, standard layout and size of wording, who is the landowner, controversial I know. 
Any signage Ts & Cs as well as PPC correspondence and this Code of Practice must also be verified with the European Convention of Human Rights and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and any breaches penalised.
Any signage Ts & Cs as well as PPC correspondence that is not compliant must incur penalties on the landowner and agents (including the PPCs, legal firms and any debt collectors used) that are applied per day until they are compliant

18) On ticket machines that accept reg number, a confirm button when number entered. This will stop tickets appearing before all reg has been entered.
It should not be able for the system to accept a VRM if a vehicle with that VRM is not present in the car park.

19) Remote pads for entering your reg, i.e. hotels, pubs etc, to give a printed ticket as proof you have registered. 

20) A radical change to default CCJs where PPCs are involved. Credit clamping by PPCs to be abolished as per Mrs May's broken promise of several years ago. PPCs having to check that letters are sent to current addresses and prove what steps they have taken to verify.  Court action being dependent on this.  Ideally they wouldn't be able to use the courts at all.

21) Debt collectors must be registered (FCA?) with a complaints procedure available. 
 
22) Parity in ticket for both council and private car parks including the discount for prompt payment.

23) Cancellation charge on production of a valid ticket with reg number

24) Cancellation of ticket on production of a valid disabled badge or proof of disability Doctor/Hospital letter, list of prescription meds etcetera.

25) No details passed to third parties (debt collectors etc)

26) Cost cannot increase above this level due to added charges.

27) Fluttering tickets  -  some sort of ID on reverse to show it is valid. Fit for purpose self adhesive tickets to the same standard as used in council car parks. The whole car must be checked for tickets such as seats, footwells, and other windows, not just the front windscreen.

28) Raise the ADR time limit to minimum 6 years in line with the statutory legislation for court claims.

29) Fine the CEOs of these PPCs over 99% of their actual salaries including bonuses for any breaches. 

30) PCNs (or whatever they are going to be called) must not be issued to a vehicle keeper where the land is not relevant according to the PoFA 2012. A request can be made to ask the keeper for the driver or owner's details, but a PCN must never be issued to a keeper where for example Byelaws apply. 

31) Private companies to be prohibited from operating on Council land as if it were privately owned. Council Local Authority rules only must be used.

32) PCNs cannot be issued in residential areas where the parking is already allowed either by primacy of contract or land ownership. Penalties to PPCs who do not carry out checks of residents' rights/Land Registry checks before infesting a residents' car park. 
Penalties to MAs as well for employing the scammers without first balloting in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act.

33) Penalties for: -

Reducing parking times when already defined by pre-existing planning permission Issuing PCNs for leaving site when already permitted by pre-existing planning permission.
Breach of advertising consent requirements.

Corporate penalties for individuals such as PPC owners/CEOs people with significant interest in the company etcetera as well for more serious or serial breaches of the CoP. (Lying, false statements, false instruments, deceit whether intentional or not).

Penalties to include automatic re-imbursement of all PCNs incorrectly issued. whether appealed or not.

34) Where paid for payment for parking is carried out, the ability to pay up to 48 hours after the parking event has ended to bring it in line with other motoring charges such as tolls.

35) As well as a six month time limit to obtain keeper data from the DVLA, there should be a maximum time limit to use it of say six months after the six month limit of obtaining it. This would bring it in line with the ADR Act 2015 that allows appeals for up to one year. This would allow the PPC up to one year to start a claim for moneys up to and including court claims. After one year, the PPC should be prohibited from processing keeper data to collect an alleged debt. 
This could be achieved by including it in the new CoP or via an amendment to the PoFA 2012 or some other legislation.


36) Any letters used by PPCs, their solicitors or any debt collection agency partner must be authorised by the Plain Language Commission for clarity, ease of understanding and tone of phrasing: there should be no more use of language that can cause people undue distress.
 
37) There needs to be measures in place to throw out any PCNs issued for contraventions that fall under the de minimis rule or Lord Denning's red hand rule: motorists should not be penalised for genuine errors that the man on the Clapham omnibus could make or are trivial and could easily be rectified with some simple communication.
Mitigation should be taken into consideration during appeals.
Fairness of the ticket should be considered by the appeals assessor in accordance with the requirements of the CRA, irrespective of whether it has been mentioned or not in the appeal.

38) Charges must not be increased above that stated in the Beavis case (£85). The PPC must provide a valid explanation to demand more up to a maximum of £100 with proof of the requirement to increase up to that level.

No additional charges for management/debt collection etcetera allowed as per the requirements of the PoFA 2012 and the Beavis ruling para 198 that stated the amount included debt collection costs and profit.

39) There needs to be proper investigations and auditing of all PPCs and a single appeals body: this should also do its best to ensure that any person involved who has a conflict of interest/vested interest in the system has to either declare it or recuse themselves from any proceedings that affect the keeper/driver/motorist.

40) Any signage Ts & Cs as well as PPC correspondence and this Code of Practice must also be verified with the European Convention of Human Rights and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and any breaches penalised.

41) Any signage Ts & Cs as well as PPC correspondence that is not compliant must incur penalties on the landowner and agents (including the PPCs, legal firms and any debt collectors used) that are applied per day until they are compliant - I think this would concentrate their minds on fixing their breaches sooner rather than later.

BrownTrout

Hmm anyone can appeal on anyone's behalf with authorisation so parking companies cant refuse to deal with third parties
A driver can appeal a notice without the need for a liability transfer first......

DoaM

Fruitcake said:

Perhaps we should start to collate a list of things we want addressed. Should it be this thread or should it be a stand alone thread like the one for the template defences?

I think this thread is as good as any ... the thread title is relevant.

Fruitcake

DoaM said:

Fruitcake said:

Perhaps we should start to collate a list of things we want addressed. Should it be this thread or should it be a stand alone thread like the one for the template defences?

I think this thread is as good as any ... the thread title is relevant.

Okay, I'll start a list in my post above and update it as people post suggestions, assuming Umkomaas has no objection.
When the public consultation period starts, as many people as possible will need to send their input.

Umkomaas

Fruitcake said:

DoaM said:

Fruitcake said:

Perhaps we should start to collate a list of things we want addressed. Should it be this thread or should it be a stand alone thread like the one for the template defences?

I think this thread is as good as any ... the thread title is relevant.

Okay, I'll start a list in my post above and update it as people post suggestions, assuming Umkomaas has no objection.
When the public consultation period starts, as many people as possible will need to send their input.

Just in from lockdown hoedown - well a walk with Mrs U - so only now looked back in on the thread. No objections from me to using this thread as a repository for issues to be raised. Thanks @Fruitcake. 👍

Heres a few from me to kick things off:

1. Far more regulation and control of ANPR cameras (even their banning as per local authorities)
2. Banning of MNPR - the Manual Number Plate Recognition misnomer as an excuse to grab keeper details early. 

3. More control and regulation around self ticketing, including formal training courses for the Norris Coles self ticketers. 
4. The blurring of the edges of the description 'Parking' to be controlled and regulated - no stopping, no entry, no waiting, leaving the site (or any other 'trap' ideas PPCs can conjure up). 

5. Penalties for PPCs who put people through hoops (appeal, LBC, Court Claim etc) then withdraw at the last moment. 

6. Time cost award to the motorist if the PPC contests an appeal to the new independent appeal board that is upheld in favour of the motorist. 

They'll do for now!

Browntoa

Penalty award to the motorist for repeated " residents own parking space" PCN

Make stores and ladlords have responsibility for the action of their chosen parking management company . Financial penalty for them for failures of their management company

Browntoa

Requirements for a national standard for "tamper proof " ticketing devices. Remove any chance of dates/times/images being edited after the event .

Isle_of_Wight_man

1. How about a standardisation of car park signage, standard layout and size of wording, who is the landowner, controversial I know.
2. If ANPR is being used a separate larger sign with a symbol of a camera on the same pole as entrance sign.
3. On ticket machines that accept reg number, a confirm button when number entered. This will stop tickets appearing before all reg has been entered.
4. Remote pads for entering your reg, i.e. hotels, pubs etc, to give a printed ticket as proof you have registered.
   

Fruitcake

Isle_of_Wight_man said:

1. How about a standardisation of car park signage, standard layout and size of wording, who is the landowner, controversial I know.
2. If ANPR is being used a separate larger sign with a symbol of a camera on the same pole as entrance sign.
3. On ticket machines that accept reg number, a confirm button when number entered. This will stop tickets appearing before all reg has been entered.
4. Remote pads for entering your reg, i.e. hotels, pubs etc, to give a printed ticket as proof you have registered.
   

Thanks. I'll add a comment that it should not be possible to enter a VRM on a keypad/pay machine if a vehicle with that VRM is not present. I'll add 2, to the ANPR point already mentioned.

beamerguy

The price on the ticket must remain the same and comply with the Supreme Court.
198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''

Debt collectors must be registered with a complaints procedure available.