Parking News - JUDICIAL REVIEW - here we go again

Le_Kirk

Will they never give in?  Other than that - well, words fail me!

Coupon-mad

Hundreds of millions ride on the false £70 multiple add-ons every year.  Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, so it's not surprising.

Very tiresome and delaying though and this action will just get more bad publicity for the greedy parking industry.

It will also pee off the Government, which for a regulated sector, won't be good for their credibility long term.

An interesting stat from DRPLUS in the article, is that 40% of cases passed to them are multi-tickets cases.

This means:

(1). almost half of cases involve the DRA or roboclaim lot pocketing/taking a major share of a hefty 3 figure sum as a bounty, so no wonder they are peed off,

and

(2). The new code has it 'bang on' that tickets must be served on windscreens where possible and that new NPCs must be issued where a new address comes to light.  This will prevent ALMOST ALL of those multi ticket cases DRPLUS et all currently feed off.

Snakes_Belly

I cannot see the Government back tracking on this one.  With the increase in the cost of energy prices, food etc, they won't want to inflict any more pain on the public.

People will carry on working from home and people who do drive to work may start sharing cars to cut costs. I cannot see an increase in the need for parking spaces. 

Courts will want the CoP to be robust as they will be busy with divorces as couples will no longer have to wait.  

Coupon-mad

Can't see backtracking - but we all know how easily led crusty Judges can be, by slick PPC patter in court.  That's what the whingers are banking on.

I hope the DLUHC are sure of their position.  They've had loads of evidence from me, and others.

Snakes_Belly

Coupon-mad said:

Can't see backtracking - but we all know how easily led crusty Judges can be, by slick PPC patter in court.  That's what the whingers are banking on.

I hope the DLUHC are sure of their position.  They've had loads of evidence from me, and others.

Is it costly to have a Judicial Review and who would pay for it? I know when one of the groups fighting for women's pensions to be backdated to 60 went down this route they had to crowd fund. IMHO that was ill advised but that's another story.  

bargepole

In a JR, the usual procedure is that the losing party has to pay the winning party's costs.

The legal costs for each side can come out at around £30-£40k, so not for the faint hearted.

Jenni_D

Given the amounts the PPCs and DRAs (allegedly) stand to lose, they'll probably see £30-40k as loose change.

Coupon-mad

Yes indeed.  Some of the big guns won't get out of bed for less and due to the multi-millions riding on it, this throw of the dice seems worth it for them.

Imagine my surprise.

Trainerman

Excuse my ignorance, but surely Parliament makes the laws for the Judiciary to uphold. Once the Code is ratified by Parliament, what can the scammers achieve anyway?

Or do I have a much too simplistic idea of things?

Snakes_Belly

Trainerman said:

Excuse my ignorance, but surely Parliament makes the laws for the Judiciary to uphold. Once the Code is ratified by Parliament, what can the scammers achieve anyway?

Or do I have a much too simplistic idea of things?

You would think so. My only knowledge is of the Back to 60 Judicial Review. I watched some of this online and it went on for several days. There were a number of judges and some high profile QC's. This was challenging law. Back to 60 did not win and were denied the right to appeal.  I think that fighting a law that equalises the pension age for men and women on the basis of discrimination was going to be difficult.