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

DoaM

Snakes_Belly said:

One particular issue is the fact that motorists receiving PCN's can result in CCJ's. This is particularly damaging to young people who need to obtain finance and may be applying for jobs. Employment is going to be difficult enough in this environment without have a CCJ on their credit file. Any job in finance would be ruled out. I think this is more a comment that should be made regarding the Enforcement Framework rather than the CoP.

Also anyone receiving a CCJ for a parking claim should have the ability to remove it if paid off. It should not be on for six years. This is out of scope for the CoP, and probably also for the Enforcement Framework ... I'm not sure it'll be so easy to categorise CCJs and provide differing methods of registration depending on category.
    

My observations in bold above.

Castle

More than 50% of claims issued result in "default judgments" according to Government statistics.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly#2019

So the problem is not just confined to parking tickets.

Fruitcake

Snakes_Belly said:

I have been giving some thoughts to the comments that I intend to make. Must start the process soon.

One particular issue is the fact that motorists receiving PCN's can result in CCJ's. This is particularly damaging to young people who need to obtain finance and may be applying for jobs. Employment is going to be difficult enough in this environment without have a CCJ on their credit file. Any job in finance would be ruled out.

Hopefully the proposed reduction in parking charges will help but at the moment students who may not go home because of COVID could fall foul because they have not received paperwork. They could easily end up with a default CCJ. Young people should not be damaged in this way at the start of their adult life.

I would like to see some guidance regard parking, signage and the fact that they are forming a contract as part of their driving test.

Also anyone receiving a CCJ for a parking claim should have the ability to remove it if paid off. It should not be on for six years. 


    

One of the problems with parking scammers is that many of the court happy ones will go straight for a default judgement as quickly as possible if they get no response from a motorist resulting in a CCJ. 
Reference to the ADR Act in the PAS needs to be highlighted in our comments as the Act states it must be made available for up to one year. If everyone who got a PCN left it eleven months before using the appeals process, it would make a huge difference to the whole private parking scheme scam.

Coupon-mad

DoaM said:

Snakes_Belly said:

One particular issue is the fact that motorists receiving PCN's can result in CCJ's. This is particularly damaging to young people who need to obtain finance and may be applying for jobs. Employment is going to be difficult enough in this environment without have a CCJ on their credit file. Any job in finance would be ruled out. I think this is more a comment that should be made regarding the Enforcement Framework rather than the CoP.

Also anyone receiving a CCJ for a parking claim should have the ability to remove it if paid off. It should not be on for six years. This is out of scope for the CoP, and probably also for the Enforcement Framework ... I'm not sure it'll be so easy to categorise CCJs and provide differing methods of registration depending on category.
    

My observations in bold above.

I think even though some things may be outside of the scope of the Wider Framework, please suggest them anyway.

I am certainly suggesting some major wider changes.  Without tipping off the industry:

- a new PAP for PPC claims
- a change to CPR 13 to make set asides mandatory for PCN cases if they have been inflated by false costs (easy to spot)

and more than I won't go into.

Umkomaas

FINITO - finally got to the end. Comments on the Enforcement consultation, main body of PAS 232 and Annexes completed.

A polite reminder to anyone still to comment, there are just little over 4.5 days before the window closes. Speak now or forever hold thy peace!

Notice a bit of a surge in comments evidently from the PPC network, many are multiple copy and pastes of the same comment (some with quite dreadful grammar/spelling), maybe some of the more 'considered' PPC comments have been templated out to them by their respective ATA?

Hopefully our efforts will help make a major improvement for both landowners and the motoring public. 

Le_Kirk

Umkomaas said:

Notice a bit of a surge in comments evidently from the PPC network, many are multiple copy and pastes of the same comment (some with quite dreadful grammar/spelling), maybe some of the more 'considered' PPC comments have been templated out to them by their respective ATA?
Hopefully our efforts will help make a major improvement for both landowners and the motoring public. 

No really, copy & paste, grammatical and spelling errors!  Definitely a surge today up to over 1400 now.  Are we allowed to comment on comments?  Shame there is no way of informing BSI it is being spammed.

beamerguy

Le_Kirk said:

Umkomaas said:

Notice a bit of a surge in comments evidently from the PPC network, many are multiple copy and pastes of the same comment (some with quite dreadful grammar/spelling), maybe some of the more 'considered' PPC comments have been templated out to them by their respective ATA?
Hopefully our efforts will help make a major improvement for both landowners and the motoring public. 

Shame there is no way of informing BSI it is being spammed.

There is a way, tell Robert Jenrick MP. IT IS HIS BABY

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

FINITO - finally got to the end. Comments on the Enforcement consultation, main body of PAS 232 and Annexes completed.

A polite reminder to anyone still to comment, there are just little over 4.5 days before the window closes. Speak now or forever hold thy peace!

Notice a bit of a surge in comments evidently from the PPC network, many are multiple copy and pastes of the same comment (some with quite dreadful grammar/spelling), maybe some of the more 'considered' PPC comments have been templated out to them by their respective ATA?

Hopefully our efforts will help make a major improvement for both landowners and the motoring public. 

We have been hammering the blue badge is not applicable on private land point. Whenever the scammers say, it is the only way to tell if someone is disabled I point out that the EA 2010 has been around for a decade so the scammers have had ten years to come up with an alternative that complies with the act and doesn't discriminate against disabled motorists who don't display a blue badge.

I'm absolutely livid about SRS taking a legless war hero to court for not displaying a BB. He was asleep in his adapted car, his wheelchair was visible in the back, and his prosthetic legs were visible in the front. It was obvious that the parking knew the driver was severely disabled but he got a scamvoice anyway, even though a NTD was not issued.
If anyone has the time, please go back to section 5 and make a comment about this disgusting abuse of a disabled motorist.
I believe the judge also erred in law, but that is another matter. 

Fruitcake

Le_Kirk said:

Umkomaas said:

Notice a bit of a surge in comments evidently from the PPC network, many are multiple copy and pastes of the same comment (some with quite dreadful grammar/spelling), maybe some of the more 'considered' PPC comments have been templated out to them by their respective ATA?
Hopefully our efforts will help make a major improvement for both landowners and the motoring public. 

No really, copy & paste, grammatical and spelling errors!  Definitely a surge today up to over 1400 now.  Are we allowed to comment on comments?  Shame there is no way of informing BSI it is being spammed.

Wherever possible, when my family members or I have come across a PPC comment, we have copied and pasted all or some of it, then used their own logic to debunk it.
We haven't actually commented directly on a comment, but have said something like, it is ludicrous to suggest that ... then pastes the scammer's previous comment before rubbishing it.

Fruitcake

beamerguy said:

Le_Kirk said:

Umkomaas said:

Notice a bit of a surge in comments evidently from the PPC network, many are multiple copy and pastes of the same comment (some with quite dreadful grammar/spelling), maybe some of the more 'considered' PPC comments have been templated out to them by their respective ATA?
Hopefully our efforts will help make a major improvement for both landowners and the motoring public. 

Shame there is no way of informing BSI it is being spammed.

There is a way, tell Robert Jenrick MP. IT IS HIS BABY

I am still waiting for him to reply to the question I sent him several months ago. I think I will have to take a breath soon because I can't hold it much longer.