Parking News - JUDICIAL REVIEW - here we go again

patient_dream

I personally think that men and women are equal.   That JR would have cost the government a fortune if they lost.

With the parking industry, it's private and self financed and the new code of practice was to stop "Scam Paradise" ?

There is enough evidence of the scam over the last 10 years and it is the duty of government to protect the public and a JR might well open up another can of worms against the parking industry

bargepole

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?

Any law or regulations passed by Parliament can, in theory, be challenged by way of Judicial Review.

The party bringing the JR would have to persuade the High Court on one of the following grounds:

Illegality - the law is in conflict with another statute, or with one of the Human Rights articles

Procedural Unfairness - the Government did not adopt a fair procedure in considering all the evidence before them

Irrationality - the law is so unreasonable that no other reasonable body would have passed such a law.

In practice, these are all very high barriers to overcome, and I think the parking industry's chances of success, if they proceed with this, are thinner than the low-fat spread on an anorexic supermodel's crispbread.

Trainerman

bargepole said:

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?

Any law or regulations passed by Parliament can, in theory, be challenged by way of Judicial Review

In practice, these are all very high barriers to overcome, and I think the parking industry's chances of success, if they proceed with this, are thinner than the low-fat spread on an anorexic supermodel's crispbread.

Thanks @bargepole I do so hope that you are right

Snakes_Belly

It would appear to be more about the process than the content. If anyone was trying to circumvent the process it was the PPC's.

It sounds as if it could be just a delaying tactic.   

Coupon-mad

You might find this interesting. 

The Official ZatPark recording made available of part of the BPA Conference:

https://zatpark.com/blog/bpa-aos-code-of-practice-panel-debate

DCBL stuff isn't worth listening to; they make it sound like they help consumers.  We know the truth.

Derek Millard-Smith1:08 onwards is of interest where the latter says 'behind the scenes...what can be done about that'... 

Steve Clark at 1:10 talks about how gobsmacked he was about debt recovery fees being banned.

And again, Derek Millard-Smith from 1:52 onwards.

And in particular, 1:54 onwards "every option is being looked at"..."one way to do it is to threaten JR". "Glaring errors in the document".

Both are saying removing the false fees will cause more court cases.  Errm, no.

There will be a feeding frenzy right now, all the time they can still slosh money about and harass people.  Then in the longer term I personally hope that the robo-claim lot will...well...just get stuffed. 

They caused a lot of this. Can't parking operators see how the greed of the DRAs has actually damaged them and caused millions of charges NOT to be recovered?

Umkomaas

At 2:07

Q - Anonymous Attendee: "Does the BPA have pockets deep enough to fund a Judicial Review?

A - Steve Clark: "No it doesn't".

Oh dear.  Gofundme page anyone? 😄

Snakes_Belly

Umkomaas said:

At 2:07

Q - Anonymous Attendee: "Does the BPA have pockets deep enough to fund a Judicial Review?

A - Steve Clark: "No it doesn't".

Oh dear.  Gofundme page anyone? 😄

I watched some of the Back to 60 Judicial Review and it went on for a number of days with several judges each day. Both parties had teams of legals led by some high profile QC's. It must have cost a fortune. Back to 60 lost and were refused an appeal. They crowd funded for the JR and wanted full reparation which they were very unlikely to achieve.

If a JR is allowed for the new CoP it could backfire if the claim is determined to become a debt after court stage.

Coupon-mad

The JR wouldn't be funded by the BPA anyway, as they are a not-for-profit organisation without reserves like that.

If it's done, it'll be by the PPCs/DRAs.  Maybe those who grouped together and whinged at the Lords stage. And doesn't the BPA article (which I haven't re-read) mention DRPlus and DCBL for starters? 

They are sloshing around in money.  We all know why!

Nearly half of cases referred to them (so says DRPlus/ex-UKPC guy, 'Stewart whatsisname') are multi-tickets cases.

Money for old rope.  Send one letter chasing 3 unfair PCNs that a resident typically knew nothing about, add £210 and hope the recipient falls for it, as many do.

Kerchhiiing!! Hundreds of quid for one letter and a bulk 'soft trace' that cost 29 pence.

Derek Millard-Smith seems convinced 'everything is fine' with what the DRAs do, as long as they don't 'push it' (his phrase in that recording).  Jeez, I'd hate to know what his version of 'pushing it' is, if he thinks what they do now is legal, which I am sure he is happy it all is.

I beg to differ.  And the Govt appear to agree with the consumer side.  As long as they are sure of their reasons and can show fairness in the final rationale then hopefully they'd see off a money-grabbing whingers' JR attempt.

patient_dream

I guess they had to put on this show to placate their members who are clearly scared stiif of the future

I thought the opening speech by DCBL was "much ado about nothing" and somewhat typical of the parking industry as a whole

If the debt collectors still want to make money, they can charge the PPC

It was rubbish to say that without debt collectors it would go straight to court ? Have they forgotten about PAP ?  The letter before claim from a legal is in itself a debt letter which of course in the future will not include the fake add-on.

Chasing up a £50 charge is not worthwhile . The Scottish court system should be adopted with a minimum claim value

Mr Clark made me laugh by saying that if a car park charged £100 a day then the motorist could abuse this by just paying the reduced £25.
I don't know what planet these people came from but as they realise that government is serious, they should return knowing they failed

We currently have a government in crisis who need voters to support them so will they support the many millions of motorists or an industry known for it's scamming ?   The voter comes first.

The BPA can continue bleeting away but they have already failed. This is totally their own fault and doing

Snakes_Belly

The passing of the bill that started the ball rolling was not a contentious issue in Parliament. There was 100% cross party support for the bill. 

Would they have to throw money at a JR before they are allowed to have a hearing?