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

Snakes_Belly

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/drafts/2020-00193/000000000030425971?standardsReference=PAS 232#/n73f0601af9c1c4e5#n73f0601af9c1c4e5

9.4.4 is getting some action from the PPC's This relates to the amount of time that a motorist has to pay after notification of the rejection of an appeal. Suggestion is 28 days. Many comments wanting this reduced to 14 days. I have suggested 28 working days. County Court judgment has to be paid in 30 days.

Should their business model be contingent on the collection of these charges in 14 days instead of 28 days? 

D_P_Dance

I regret that I gave this up as "too difficult"   K.I.S.S.

beamerguy

Fruitcake said:

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.

I will not put up with such rubbish.  A letter to Kendrick with CC emails to his oppo number your MP and the oppo in your area.  Oh yes, a copy to Boris.   Kenrick comes across as a wide boy anyway

Take a leaf out of Trumps book "the consultation has been corrupted"

Le_Kirk

It should be obvious to those at BSI that this is a co-ordinated attempt by "someone" to skew the outcome of the consultation because instead of using their own words they have sent a set of words around for them to be copied and pasted.  The wording is too exact for it to be taken as coincidence! 
They've even copied and pasted the error (there is a word missing) and I tried to report it using the BSI system but it only accepts set comments from a drop-down box and there is no free text field.
ETA  I have now reported the comments by adding a comment pointing it out.  It will either do some good or I will be kicked out of the consultation!

Castle

Snakes_Belly said:

9.4.4 is getting some action from the PPC's This relates to the amount of time that a motorist has to pay after notification of the rejection of an appeal. Suggestion is 28 days. Many comments wanting this reduced to 14 days. I have suggested 28 working days. County Court judgment has to be paid in 30 days.

Should their business model be contingent on the collection of these charges in 14 days instead of 28 days? 

I think most motorists will be going for option (b) and appealing to the appeals services; especially as the code makes reference to the ADR which allows 12 months to appeal.

Ralph-y

There is a contact us at the very top of the PAS 232 page. That links to a email form. I have sent a letter in re the PPC's contributions, I suspect that it is just a general /  generic help and comment page, not specific to the consultation.

I await a reply

Ralph

Snakes_Belly

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

9.4.4 is getting some action from the PPC's This relates to the amount of time that a motorist has to pay after notification of the rejection of an appeal. Suggestion is 28 days. Many comments wanting this reduced to 14 days. I have suggested 28 working days. County Court judgment has to be paid in 30 days.

Should their business model be contingent on the collection of these charges in 14 days instead of 28 days? 

I think most motorists will be going for option (b) and appealing to the appeals services; especially as the code makes reference to the ADR which allows 12 months to appeal.

I agree but if they do decide to pay they should have 28 working days. It also gives them time to consider their options. The PPC's are pushing for 14 days.

beamerguy

This was inevitable that the scammers are trying to scupper the consultation and the illegal cartel they operate, are now scamming the BSI .....  and Sir Greg Knight and onwards to government 
By doing this must show Kendrick and the like that the money scam is out of control.

This must be exposed. I have done what I said above and sent emails ========================================
Want to see who I have sent this to and what I said ... PM me.  BE AWARE that I will only respond to those I know on this forum. I do not respond to money scammers. We don't want to tell the odd bods what's going on do we
=========================================

On a side note, the Works and Pension Secretary made a normal classic government error today be saying that out of work air crew should retrain as carers ???? what, and get covid ?

Never mentioned staff and bosses of parking companies, she missed that one.
They could move to being rubbish collectors, no training required

Le_Kirk

Ralph-y said:

There is a contact us at the very top of the PAS 232 page. That links to a email form. I have sent a letter in re the PPC's contributions, I suspect that it is just a general /  generic help and comment page, not specific to the consultation.

I await a reply

Ralph

You are quite right @Ralph-y and I have used it.  They are quite quick to respond (less than a day- and even worked last Sunday) but they are looking at all of the BSI site so you have to put PAS 232 in the text of your complaint/comment.  When I used it I was asking for help/info, which was quickly supplied.

Umkomaas

@Le_Kirk - can you remind me how to access total number of responses please?  Can't find your original input on it. Thanks.