The Draft Private Parking Code of Practice (PAS 232) now out for Consultation

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

I disagree with MBL wrt the dvla.   I own a few rental properties and from time to time need to know who owns a vehicle parked at one of my properties without my consent. 

But in the case of an individual seeking registered keeper (not owner!) data from the DVLA, as in your case, they have to provide far more detail as to why they require it, and at what address. The PPCs provide far less and the DVLA undertake no day to day checks, they simply leave open the floodgates for the PPC computers to electronically plunder the database - 23,000 times a day, 8,400,000 times a year!

Coupon-mad

How about this sort of rationale as a tiered approach?   Feedback appreciated!

I stress this is my first thought as to which breaches could be at a higher level:

Rationale
The majority of parking charges (all geographical areas) to be capped at no more than the Lower

Level charge applicable to all Local Authority parking areas outside of Greater London; currently £50.

A limited higher charge for certain more serious breaches is proposed and for consistency, this may

be capped at no more than the equivalent Higher Level (currently this is £70). 

Both offering a 50% reduced charge if payment is received within 21 days of service; a period

matching the applicable date set for Local Authority charges issued by post. This reflects the fact

that over 80% of private parking charges are issued remotely and allows a keeper who may know

nothing about the parking event and/or may not immediately see a Notice to Keeper when

delivered, a fair opportunity to appeal, pass it to the driver or decide to pay a reduced charge.

Higher Level Parking Charge - up to a cap of £70 (reduced to £35).

This would apply to more serious, selfish parking where the contractual terms on signage cover:

• parking in a clearly marked ambulance bay without excuse (i.e. a life and death situation is reasonable excuse);

• parking in an accessible bay without reasonable excuse: (e.g. without displaying a Blue Badge);

• ‘fly parking’ (i.e. vehicle left in breach of terms all day/for excessive hours as set on signs) without reasonable excuse;

• parking in a clearly marked (lines & signs) loading or staff permit area without reasonable excuse;

• parking in a clearly marked (lines & signs) and operational Electric Vehicle bay without charging;

• parking in a clearly marked (lines & signs) barriered area where/when parking is not invited;

• stopping more than momentarily in a clearly marked (red lines & signs) ‘no stopping’ road;

• parking and causing a dangerous obstruction: e.g. blocking a fire escape or on a pavement;

• parking across multiple bays causing one or more to be blocked from use (NB: not merely overlapping a line);

• parking a vehicle exceeding the maximum weight and/or height/length permitted.

Lower Level Parking Charge - up to a cap of £50 (discounted to £25)

All other chargeable breaches of a parking contract that are not specified in the Higher Level.

KeithP

MSE have now written a News article about this entitled Crackdown planned for private parking firms to stop unfair fines.

I won't link to it (but no doubt MSE will start a thread here about it) as it directs people to wards their abysmal appeal guidance .

Fruitcake

There appears to be two consultations here. One is the actual code of practice, and one is about the enforcement of the code and appeals process. We need to be careful not to mix the two up, but obviously there will be some cross feed involved.

We all have a lot of reading to do!

Le_Kirk

Fruitcake said:

There appears to be two consultations here. One is the actual code of practice, and one is about the enforcement of the code and appeals process. We need to be careful not to mix the two up, but obviously there will be some cross feed involved.
We all have a lot of reading to do!

There are now two separate threads running for exactly that reason @Fruitcake .

Fruitcake

We had a thread going not long ago also started by Umkomaas where I collated ideas and added/edited them as more comments came in.
Would it be a good idea to copy and paste my post from that thread into the first or second post of this thread, then edit it as we read and digest the draft proposal?
If we agree that a point from the original thread has been covered, then it could be struck through with a comment that it has been covered by para N.N of the PAS.

Previous CoP discussion thread 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6155021/private-parking-code-of-practice-public-consultation/p1

Amendments could be made to other points and/or new points added.

Whilst I would be happy to collate and edit as before, I could only do it from this post onwards which is why I think it would be better if it could be included in the first or second post of this thread if those posters don't mind.
Alternatively we could link to the other thread, but I don't think that would be as effective.

What we don't want I think is too many threads covering the same subjects which is why I suggest only including our comments from the original post on this thread, rather than have that older thread running as well.

Wos fink? 

Umkomaas

With only flitting in and out of the forum since @Fruitcake's suggestion above, I've only just got around to putting it in place. As there's a major change to my original post, I'm bumping the thread up the list, but as it's not likely to be as dynamic as day-to-day threads, it will slide rapidly down the greasy pole!  So, just a fleeting 'heads up'. 

beamerguy

Umkomaas said:

With only flitting in and out of the forum since @Fruitcake's suggestion above, I've only just got around to putting it in place. As there's a major change to my original post, I'm bumping the thread up the list, but as it's not likely to be as dynamic as day-to-day threads, it will slide rapidly down the greasy pole!  So, just a fleeting 'heads up'. 

It will remain live here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

HAVE YOUR SAY .... Your chance to comment on the new Code of Practice
Code of Practice consultation thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6185781/the-draft-private-parking-code-of-practice-pas-232-now-out-for-consultation/p1

Wider Framework plans thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6185830/new-parking-code-of-practice-enforcement-framework-consultation

Coupon-mad

HAVE YOUR SAY .... PLEASE READ THIS!

September 2020 brings your chance to comment on the new (Government Draft) 'proper' Code of Practice to rein in the worst PPC conduct and that of their scam debt collectors - please please can NEWBIES do this and in particular, comment on

(a) the AMOUNT OF THE PARKING CHARGE, WHICH WE ALL AGREE MUST BE LOWER THAN £100, and also

(b) the use of unregulated debt collector firms and the fact that they add a false layer of an extra £60 or £70 to a £100 PCN.  This must stop but you can bet your bottom dollar that the PPCs will try to mislead the Government if they get a chance.  Most likely they will spin the same misinformation that worked so well for the BPA in 2012, when they gave false figures to Government about the number of court claims and promised that keeper liability would reduce the burden on the courts.   

The BPA said there were up to 90.000 court claims per annum on 2011.  There were 845.  They said that keeper liability would reduce the '90.000 court claims'.

In fact, the 845 (in fact just 600 in 2012!) increased to 37000 within two years and is now around 110,000 per year.

This time, I suspect PPCs will prey on the concerns of Government and predict dire consequences again, if the charges are too low and if debt collector scams are brought to an end.

THAT IS WHAT WE MUST CLEARLY ADDRESS AND TELL THE GOVT THERE ARE NO SUCH CONCERNS AND THAT COURT CLAIMS WILL NOT INCREASE.

ONE OF THE TASKS OF A CONSUMER RESPONSE WILL BE TO WARN THE GOVERNMENT THAT IN FACT, REMOVING THE DEBT COLLECTORS ALTOGETHER AND BRINGING IN A ROBUST APPEALS SERVICE WILL REDUCE COURT CLAIMS!


Wider Framework plans thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6185830/new-parking-code-of-practice-enforcement-framework-consultation

Snakes_Belly

"ONE OF THE TASKS OF A CONSUMER RESPONSE WILL BE TO WARN THE GOVERNMENT THAT IN FACT, REMOVING THE DEBT COLLECTORS ALTOGETHER AND BRINGING IN A ROBUST APPEALS SERVICE WILL REDUCE COURT CLAIMS!"

This will give courts more time to focus on family issues and issues surrounding children which have been increasing during lock down. These cases are heard by the same judges that hear the parking cases. These family cases should have precedent.