Private Parking Code of Practice - Public Consultation

Castle

Snakes_Belly said:

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.

Unfortunately, I can't see the government changing the statutory time limit just for the parking industry; but, what they could do is to amend the POFA 2012 Act so that there's no "Keeper"'s liability after say 6 months.

Snakes_Belly

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

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.

Unfortunately, I can't see the government changing the statutory time limit just for the parking industry; but, what they could do is to amend the POFA 2012 Act so that there's no "Keeper"'s liability after say 6 months.

Perhaps then if there is some kind of issue such as a faulty machine drivers are given 24 to 48 hours to pay. A bit like the the Mersey Flow where you have "up to 11.59 pm the day after you cross."

MothballsWallet

I thought of some more:

6. 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 - I have a copy of the latter as a PDF on my computer (yes, I am that guy) - and any breaches penalised.
7. 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 or "I'll do it when I get around to it, guv'nor".

I may be living in cloud cuckoo land over these...

D_P_Dance

A bit over the top  surely MW?

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to give it its full title,  was enacted by   the victors of the second World War to ensure freedom in Europe,  not to regulate parking scams. 

Similarly, The UN Charter, which is ignored by probably well over half the world, deals with important  stuff like torture, imprisonment without trial, etc.   Steam hammers and nuts comes to mind.

Le_Kirk

D_P_Dance said:

A bit over the top  surely MW?
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to give it its full title,  was enacted by   the victors of the second World War to ensure freedom in Europe,  not to regulate parking scams. 
Similarly, The UN Charter, which is ignored by probably well over half the world, deals with important  stuff like torture, imprisonment without trial, etc.   Steam hammers and nuts comes to mind.

Perfect for PPCs!

MothballsWallet

D_P_Dance said:

A bit over the top  surely MW?

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to give it its full title,  was enacted by   the victors of the second World War to ensure freedom in Europe,  not to regulate parking scams. 

Similarly, The UN Charter, which is ignored by probably well over half the world, deals with important  stuff like torture, imprisonment without trial, etc.   Steam hammers and nuts comes to mind.

D_P_Dance said:

A bit over the top  surely MW?

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to give it its full title,  was enacted by   the victors of the second World War to ensure freedom in Europe,  not to regulate parking scams. 

Similarly, The UN Charter, which is ignored by probably well over half the world, deals with important  stuff like torture, imprisonment without trial, etc.   Steam hammers and nuts comes to mind.

Not really - since HM Government has been, imo, friends with these PPCs, their DCAs and scamlicitors for many, many, years, I do not trust HM Government to actually bring them in line (Mrs MbW and I also have experience of dealing with the Home Office for her visas - dare I say Windrush was probably the best thing to happen to the HO to bring their in camera operations under greater scrutiny?)

Fruitcake

I've included every idea posted. It will be up to individuals to decide which points they want to put forward or challenge during the consultation. 

Umkomaas

That really is a super help @Fruitcake. Thank you.  👍

beamerguy

This is what worries me ........ Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick – approved the planning application from a Tory donor.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8420021/Pressure-Robert-Jenrick-builds-1billion-Tory-donor-deal-Boris-Johnson-defends-man.html

Jenrick is in charge of the new code of practice just like the other government cronies before him ?

Who will pay the ferryman ????

D_P_Dance

Jenners may not have heard the last of this.  He may well have blotted his copy book, (or it may be a whitewash).