Private Parking Code of Practice - Public Consultation

BrownTrout

we have to be careful here, i think if stuff is going to submitted as block rather then a complete wish list of stuff that will be completely poo pood by the various bodies things need to be suggested that are workable, doable and non confrontational 

Umkomaas

BrownTrout said:

we have to be careful here, i think if stuff is going to submitted as block rather then a complete wish list of stuff that will be completely poo pood by the various bodies things need to be suggested that are workable, doable and non confrontational 

My hope would be that individuals use the ideas collected here to articulate in their own words. Not all ideas will be taken up by everyone, especially if they feel some ideas are a bit too extreme (or too fragile). Some responses to the consultation will be more passionate/virile/pragmatic/frail than others. Hopefully whoever is pulling the consultation responses together will form a picture 'in the round'. 

I don't see a formal forum response being formulated from this thread. 

beamerguy

BrownTrout said:

we have to be careful here, i think if stuff is going to submitted as block rather then a complete wish list of stuff that will be completely poo pood by the various bodies things need to be suggested that are workable, doable and non confrontational 

Everything suggested here is workable.  The objections will probably come from those who pick up a bounty. Anyone who thinks that backhanders will not be part of this, must reflect on Robert Jenrick ...... the man who is charged with this Code ?
He recently approved a big London building development and it came out the developers paid the government £12k 
I mean, so far this government is full of people who are in need of a new hard drive

Fruitcake

BrownTrout said:

we have to be careful here, i think if stuff is going to submitted as block rather then a complete wish list of stuff that will be completely poo pood by the various bodies things need to be suggested that are workable, doable and non confrontational 

That's why I suggested we see what people think are the most important. I am not suggesting one person does a mass input to the consultation body, but rather as many people as possible have some input say the three to five points they think are the most important, but never the exact same points.
One petition with a thousand names is never as effective as a thousand separate complaints/suggestions. 

I have my own top five list but I'll save that until this has been expanded on a bit more.

We also need to see what exactly is in the draft CoP as many points may already be covered. 

Le_Kirk

beamerguy said:

BrownTrout said:

we have to be careful here, i think if stuff is going to submitted as block rather then a complete wish list of stuff that will be completely poo pood by the various bodies things need to be suggested that are workable, doable and non confrontational 

Everything suggested here is workable.  The objections will probably come from those who pick up a bounty. Anyone who thinks that backhanders will not be part of this, must reflect on Robert Jenrick ...... the man who is charged with this Code ?
He recently approved a big London building development and it came out the developers paid the government £12k 
I mean, so far this government is full of people who are in need of a new hard drive

Except Dominic Cummings, he's already had one ..................... well a long one!

MothballsWallet

In response to Fruitcake's point 8 - I'd raise the ADR time limit to minimum 6 years in line with the statutory legislation for court claims.
I'd also fine the CEOs of these PPCs over 99% of their actual salaries including bonuses for any breaches.

Umkomaas

MothballsWallet said:

In response to Fruitcake's point 8 
I'd also fine the CEOs of these PPCs over 99% of their actual salaries including bonuses for any breaches.

A little bird has just told me that Renshaw Smith has now removed you from his Christmas card list. 😮

MothballsWallet

Umkomaas said:

MothballsWallet said:

In response to Fruitcake's point 8 
I'd also fine the CEOs of these PPCs over 99% of their actual salaries including bonuses for any breaches.

A little bird has just told me that Renshaw Smith has now removed you from his Christmas card list. 😮

Oh well, I never wanted a card from that guy anyway

Plus, he doesn't have my postal address

Fruitcake

MothballsWallet said:

In response to Fruitcake's point 8 - I'd raise the ADR time limit to minimum 6 years in line with the statutory legislation for court claims.
I'd also fine the CEOs of these PPCs over 99% of their actual salaries including bonuses for any breaches.

I've included both points but I don't know if either of them has legs. Certainly the scammers must make every reasonable effort to find a motorist, and prove they have done so, before starting a court claim.
As for the second, I think there should be a sliding scale of penalties from a warning, through banning from obtaining keeper data, to corporate and individual fines. The latter would be appropriate for the recent case where a false instrument was used in a court case.

BrownTrout

I think when people submit these the each point should be backed up with the rationale behind it .