Private Parking Code of Practice - Public Consultation

Umkomaas

BrownTrout said:

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

I agree. A response such as 'see attached', with a bullet point list of all (or most) of the issues listed on this thread is unlikely to have any impact IMHO. As @Fruitcake says earlier, perhaps select 4 or 5 key points that individuals feel most strongly about or are best able to articulate, then follow each point with a paragraph or two with the background and rationale for change ..... but no nine times out of ten BS! 😄

Fruitcake

Agreed. We need to get these points across with brief facts to back them up, not waffle, anger, or frustration.

Ralph-y

just had a quick look through ..... we need some thing re 'non relevant land' and bye-laws .... if some one would care to phrase  ...

Ralph

Fruitcake

With regards to individuals commenting at the consultation phase, I suggest some like this: -

ANPR cameras. The UK Government has prohibited the use of ANPR cameras for car park monitoring in Council and Local Authority car parks because it is not fit for purpose. (Include the relevant Gov Doc/Legislation).
This should be read across into private car park management as well. 
ANPR often fails to read every number plate or discards exit and entry data when a car visits a car park more than once during the same day, possibly by two different drivers. The resultant first in and last out times are then used to falsely generate a parking charge. In addition, the letter O and number Zero are identical on UK number plates, and the letter I and number 1 are similar. ANPR systems can be "fooled" by light and shade, rusty screws, dirt, and cracks. This often causes ANPR systems to misread a number plate such that a completely different motorist receives a parking charge notice despite their car ever being in the relevant car park.
Manual checks are supposed to take place where ANPR is used, but the actual checks allegedly carried out are never provided to the motorists, leaving many to believe they are not carried out at all, or are also not fit for purpose. 


Do the same for every point you want to highlight, always in your own words, always using legislation or court case references where possible to back it up. 

BrownTrout

Fruitcake said:

With regards to individuals commenting at the consultation phase, I suggest some like this: -

ANPR cameras. The UK Government has prohibited the use of ANPR cameras for car park monitoring in Council and Local Authority car parks because it is not fit for purpose. (Include the relevant Gov Doc/Legislation).
This should be read across into private car park management as well. 
ANPR often fails to read every number plate or discards exit and entry data when a car visits a car park more than once during the same day. The resultant first in and last out times are then used to falsely generate a parking charge. In addition, the letter O and number Zero are identical on UK number plates, and the letter I and number 1 are similar. In addition, ANPR systems can be "fooled" by light and shade, rusty screws, dirt, and cracks. This often causes ANPR systems to misread a number plate such that a completely different motorist receives a parking charge notice despite their car ever being in the relevant car park.
Manual checks are supposed to take place where ANPR is used, but the actual checks allegedly carried out are never provided to the motorists, leaving many to believe they are not carried out at all, or are also not fit for purpose. 


Do the same for every point you want to highlight, always in your own words, always using legislation or court case references where possible to back it up. 

spot on as it all very well whinging and moaning about something, but if you cant back it why would anyone take any notice

Fruitcake

Prohibition of ANPR use by councils

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

* (1)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to prohibit the use by civil enforcement officers of a device of a description specified in the regulations, or of records produced by such a device, in connection with the enforcement of parking contraventions on a road in a civil enforcement area in England.*

According to,

The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions, published in 2006

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

1.1 This Statutory Guidance is published by the Secretary of State for Transport under section 87 of the Transport Management Act 2004.

...

Enforcement using Approved Devices 
8.9

"Penalty charge notices must not be served by post on the basis of evidence from an approved device other than when vehicles are parked on:

a bus lane;
a bus stop clearway or bus stand clearway;
a Keep Clear zig-zag area outside a school; or
a red route."


In other words, a device has to be approved by the Secretary of State. Even if  ANPR is an approved device, it can only be used in the circumstances given above. Conversely it cannot therefore be used anywhere else for any other reason, including on street and off street parking.

1505grandad

And of course the two visits may not be by the same driver.

Fruitcake

1505grandad said:

And of course the two visits may not be by the same driver.

Added.

MothballsWallet

OK, to rephrase my original points and perhaps add some new ones:

1. In response to point 8 on Fruitcake's original list about the ADR time limit: I feel that the time limit for ADR to be available should be 6 years rather than just 1 year - this brings it in line with the statutory time limit for court claims, and could be used as a carrot to get PPCs to keep minor things out of court.
2. There needs to be some meaningful penalties when the PPCs break the rules, otherwise the bad eggs will continue to flout the rules: the GDPR, for example, brings responsibility to individuals and the CEOs of companies handling personal data in terms of fines and punishments, so something similar needs to happen with PPCs.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

I think that will do for now.

Snakes_Belly

With regard to parking claims the statutory time limit should be less than six years. PPC's should not be able to bring these claims out of the wordwork.  The person receiving the claim will have forgotten much of the detail by the time some of these claims are made. They should either put up or shut up.