Select Committee oral evidence today re the Parking (Code of Practice) Act

Coupon-mad

Errm, the AA chap, Jack, actually said he thought £70 might be right.  That was appallingly naive and weak, and threw consumers under the bus.  Absolutely wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever, for him to answer that way was one of the most disappointing aspects of a terrible meeting.  So much opportunity to respond, not taken.  No-one with knowledge of what really happens or any working/relevant experience of parking law was called upon to give evidence.

No MP asked ParkingEye how they make so much money WITHOUT adding £70 (because they never do).  They could have learnt from that.

One MP even mentioned home visits, clearly thinking debt collection is the completely different bailiff stage. 

And they asked 'how do you USE CCJs?'  That question didn't even make sense.  Do they know what a CCJ is and how it is reached?

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

Errm, the AA chap, Jack, actually said he thought £70 might be right.  That was appallingly naive and weak, and threw consumers under the bus.  Absolutely wrong.

YES, one does not expect the AA who rely 100% of funding from it's members who they fail to respect as members. Jack must be telling people to move to the RAC or GREENFLAG

A plain stupid suggestion by AA JACK ....... a perfect way to lose memberships 

bargepole

D_P_Dance said:

From what I have seen of select committes they are not fools.  They made Boris squirm yesterday.

Select Committees have no actual power to force Government to do anything at all.

They can conduct inquiries, summon witnesses and call for written evidence, make recommendations and reports, and require the Government to respond within 60 days. They can also, in some circumstances, trigger a debate in the Commons.

But the Government has no legal obligation to implement the recommendations of an SC, so they are effectively toothless.

patient_dream

bargepole said:

D_P_Dance said:

From what I have seen of select committes they are not fools.  They made Boris squirm yesterday.

Select Committees have no actual power to force Government to do anything at all.

They can conduct inquiries, summon witnesses and call for written evidence, make recommendations and reports, and require the Government to respond within 60 days. They can also, in some circumstances, trigger a debate in the Commons.

But the Government has no legal obligation to implement the recommendations of an SC, so they are effectively toothless.

So, if a select committee is toothless what is their point and if as you say, that would be tax payers money down the drain.  

What is the evidence they are toothless ??

bargepole

What is the evidence they are toothless ??

Here: Select committees | The Institute for Government

''These factors mean that if select committees’ informal methods of coercion prove ineffective, they are generally thought to lack any real ‘teeth’ to compel compliance.''

patient_dream

bargepole said:

What is the evidence they are toothless ??

Here: Select committees | The Institute for Government

''These factors mean that if select committees’ informal methods of coercion prove ineffective, they are generally thought to lack any real ‘teeth’ to compel compliance.''

Interesting, does that mean the four involved may have wasted their time ?

nicestrawb

I finished watching part 2. It's frustrating that nobody in that room seemed to have a good understanding of how parking or even debt collection works. I'm not an expert, but I would have been the most qualified person to ask questions and make suggesions in that room had I been there, and there are dozens of people on this board with an infinitely better grasp of the situation than I. Whether they have teeth or not isn't really relevant until they understand the issue in the first place. The AA and RAC guys tried their best, but they didn't have most of the answers as it's simply not something they have a full grasp of.

The main fix is simple though. Just have an independent appeals process which penalises PPC's for making frivolous claims against motorists.

patient_dream

It was a bit like watching a job interview.  

BUT, all four candidates failed to impress using scare tactics and quoting meaningless figures.

nicestrawb

...and were being interviewed for a marketing job, by Lyn, in accounts.

bargepole

t's frustrating that nobody in that room seemed to have a good understanding of how parking or even debt collection works ...

Indeed, they should have invited either C-m or me to give evidence, and we could have put the Committee straight on the many misleading assertions, downright untruths, and made-up statistics being spouted by the four stooges. We are at the frontline of fighting the scammers, C-m posting on every forum thread until stupid o'clock, and me going eyeball to eyeball with Judges and parking company advocates.

Somebody (I forget who) said 'We're not about issuing PCNs, we want to achieve full compliance'. Nobody on the Committee seemed to recognise that, if every motorist parked in compliance with the terms every time, there would be no PCNs issued, and therefore no revenue for the operators, who would then go bust.

The reality, of course, is that they want to issue as many PCNs as possible, as evidenced by the year-on-year numbers of DVLA data requests pre-lockdown. The BPA and IPC make noises about 'protecting landowner's land, and the NHS', but their role is simply to facilitate the gouging of motorists by their members.

The whole basis of the industry representatives' arguments, was that almost all PCNs are issued due to selfish and inconsiderate motorists who deliberately flout the rules, and it's only a small minority of rogue operators who act unacceptably. As evidenced by the success rates in challenging parking charges achieved on this forum, and by me and other Lay Reps in court hearings, the exact opposite is true.

This whole matter only became a Government issue in the first place, because the BPA and IPC are clearly incapable of regulating their members, and as such are unfit for purpose.