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

sdmitch

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.

Excellent point @bargepole

Many PPC operate under contracts (I am fighting one at the moment) with landowners where the revenue is split:

Landowner - 100% of legitimate parking charges
PPC - 100% of collected PCN's 

In other words, the PPC's only motivation in this sordid business is to issue a PCN for every single infraction they can find - no matter how trivial or 'manufactured' it may be.  

patient_dream

I think it was Hurley who said ......  'We're not about issuing PCNs, we want to achieve full compliance'.

Why government thinks the IPC serve any purpose in life goes well beyond any logic.

With the new code of practice and appeals service, the IPC/IAS will just become a DoDo and a simple money collector ..... what is the point of two subscription collectors because that is all they will be ?

And yes, these two ATA's brought it upon themselves, and complete management failure and car crash

In 2021, there is no need for these ATA's as there are plenty of government departments who can collect subscriptions for DVLA access ... even the DVLA

Umkomaas

If they are to survive long term, they will need to carry out a much different role than anything they offer now.  No longer will they be able write the rules to protect their members. Neither will they be able to sit there like the three wise monkeys when any member goes rogue. There could be trouble ahead.

nicestrawb

I'm sure there will always be a place for Mr Hurley back at Gladstones. Oh, wait......

Fruitcake

How do we, the motoring public, get to have our say with this sort of thing?

We complain to our MPs and ask others to do the same. We complete consultations and ask others to do the same.

I still don't know how any one of us could get an invite to be a witness at something like this, so the people most affected actually get to put their/our point of view.

As already mentioned, any one of the regulars and many of the posters who come here for help understand the scam better than most, but the whole debate seems to be very one sided, again.

sdmitch

Extracts from:

Standards required to obtain ATA status: 

Must demonstrate that they have an independent appeals and complaints process 

Must demonstrate impartiality when dealing with complaints/appeals 

The list goes on, but given that  the following facts apply/applied to the IPC/IAS:

From incorporation (11/10/2012) until todays’ date, Will Hurley has had an ownership interest in the IAS – today, through his ownership of Will Hurley Limited, he owns 100% of the IAS/IPC and other related trade names.

From 18/02/2013 until 10/03/2020 Will Hurley held a 49% ownership interest in Gladstones Solicitors Limited.

From incorporation in 18/02/2011 until todays’ date John Davies has had an ownership interest in Gladstones Solicitors Limited – today he owns 100% through his 100% shareholding in Gladstones Holdings Limited.

From 11/02/2012 until 30/01/2018 John Davies owned 50% of the IAS/IPC and other related trade names.

The two statements above in bold, are pure works of fiction. ATA status should never have been granted to the IPC/IAS - END OF.

patient_dream

Not forgetting that ......

William Kenneth Hurley

is still a solicitor registered with the SRA ..... SRA number 397493

The split between Davies and Hurley when the IPC/IAS scam was exposed is well documented.
The prosecution of Gladstones over the years must involve Hurley.

Are the SRA fully aware of the history of this duo ???

95Rollers

Fruitcake said:

How do we, the motoring public, get to have our say with this sort of thing?

We .

I still don't know how any one of us could get an invite to be a witness at something like this, so the people most affected actually get to put their/our point of view.

As already mentioned, any one of the regulars and many of the posters who come here for help understand the scam better than most, but the whole debate seems to be very one sided, again.

100% agreed.  It was a total closed shop and certainly not a balanced panel or true reflection or a cross section of society.  Its 4 cronies and then the 2 guys from the AA abd RAC who were meant to rep us. What about someone like CM or one of those pesky do-gooder  "armchair lawyers" - the ones they like to warn people about on their websites. Thr same armchair lawyers who regularly cream their qualified legal experts in court most weeks! Or even somebody from Debt Aid or mental health sector too or the financial sector to highlight the problem of Phantom CCJs or maybe a District Judge to talk about the impact they have on the courts or someone from a Consumer Rights organisation?!? 

It's no coincidence they got the head of Parking Eye to represent the firms than instead of the ex clampers! so it's not a true representation of parking bosses either. 🤔

But whilst watching it I couldn't help but think about Karl Pilkington's superhero - Bullsh*t Man who would of been in his element! 

https://youtu.be/pOcwK3GhkkU

patient_dream

For those who missed the Select Committee on Private Parking

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2d2a2a1e-7680-464e-9c61-5fc9a2eb56a1

Just press the play button

Witnesses

Wednesday 17th November 2021

At 10am

• Philip Boynes, Chief Executive Officer, Parkingeye
• Andrew Pester, Chief Executive, British Parking Association
• Will Hurley, Chief Executive, International Parking Community
• Stewart Clure, Managing Director, Debt Recovery Plus

At 11am

• Steve Gooding, Director, RAC Foundation
• Jack Cousens, Head of Roads Policy, The AA

All four were quoting figures as to why they were right ?
The AA and RAC told a different story

NEVER ONCE did any MP query the figures or ask for proof 

You may now ask your MP to ask for an explanation as to why the committee FAILED 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

IMHO that was terrible.  

It was indeed terrible, as I said at the time.   Watching it was a car crash.

Now the Select Committee has sent some recommendations.  The Chair of the DLUHC sent a letter to Neil O'Brien MP that I just found when randomly Googling for updates. 

To sum it up ''the industry told us this, the industry told us that...and we swallowed the lot'':

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/17/levelling-up-housing-and-communities-committee/news/159356/parking-fines-luhc-chair-writes-to-minister-neil-obrien/

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8068/documents/83007/default/


However, a chink of light thanks to Steve Gooding of the RACF:

"Steve Gooding from the RAC Foundation suggested that capping charges at £70 may mean that charges levied are disproportionate to the action taken and do not reflect “an accurate representation of the admin costs involved,” for instance where a debt collection agency has only generated an automated letter without having to conduct an extensive search for the registered keeper, and where the charge is paid following an initial demand."

''Extensive search'' - what on earth do they think this costs.  A CRA soft trace costs from 29 pence and all DRAs do it free for their mates in PPC World.