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

Coupon-mad

And after reading that, read this:  

https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/70197/parking-professionals-are-not-cowboys

"Parking professionals are not cowboys

Newspaper headlines accusing car park operators of being dishonest are very wide of the mark, says Dyl Kurpil"

He would say that, wouldn't he?

Fruitcake

This is like the bad old days of closed-shop working. I have still yet to find a way in to the consultation so my voice can be heard. Parking companies, powerless debt collectors, and motoring organisations who do not represent my interests have been invited to be witnesses at oral hearings, but people like me and thee have been excluded.

I will give my MP a nudge after the Solstice celebrations are over, but I shall not be holding my breasts. 

ihatetrump

@Coupon-mad

"Parking professionals"

The ultimate Oxymoron


Interesting that the headline uses the word 'professionals' and then doesn't use the word again in the entire article - must be a struggle to find a professional then  - being a paying member of the IPC or BPA doesn't make its' members professionals.

Snakes_Belly

Hurley was saying that 34% of PCN'S are issued to bilkers. I don't believe that.  That is not what we see on the forum.  

@Fruitcake, I agree with you about the lack of representation from the public who have been on the receiving end including someone who represents residential parking and disabled parking. I shall be writing to my MP.

As for the lack of parity between PPC's and council, you only have to look at the petition that has been started regarding the two car parks in Lichfield. They were managed by the council and are now run by Excel. This has caused numerous PCN's to be issued to blue badge holders. There is a case for blue badge holders to be free on all car parks.  

patient_dream

Thanks coupon for posting the links.

My view is the parking industry should now be worried

Clive Betts, Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, said: 
"The Committee agrees with the overall aim of making the private parking enforcement more straightforward by bringing charges in line with local authority charges"

He also said on debt collection charges .. "fees to be proportionate to the level of enforcement action taken in a particular case to protect motorists from disproportionate costs"

This indicates a percentage system which of course would knock Gary Osner of ZZPS off his dreamworld perch.
BUT, if they are not regulated it would still be the same ... IGNORE THEM

The BPA said that parking firms will go bust but so will debt collectors.

And the PDF letter quoted ...

1: "This is particularly concerning given that Philip Boynes, Chief Executive of Parkingeye, told the committee that as it currently stands the proposed framework “will remove 62% of the most professional operators” from the sector, potentially leaving landowners in the hands of less scrupulous operators"

There is no such thing as a "professional operator" and certainly the operators we see on here on a regular basis are just money bandits. Boyne says "ln the hands of less scrupulous operators" ??

Boyne has missed the point of the new code ..... the new code is designed to get rid of the less scrupulous operators ?

2: "Stewart Clure, Managing Director of Debt Recovery Plus, told the Committee that the proposals also risk rendering free parking arrangements unviable, as land owners will not be able to finance the management required"

Clure is all part of the BPA propaganda which is just scaremongering.
If a parking company went bust, another will take their place ..  it will be not be unviable ?
Landowners would not get involved in the finance of a scheme when their will always be an operator ready to jump in.  
What landowners will need to do is a credit style check on who they employ. Free parking will always exist for the landowner to survive and protect sales for their own customers like supermarkets.   Tesco as an example have their own parking dept, which is brick wall for motorists. Maybe that will be the way to go.  Landowners in general will not get involved 

And, Neil O’Brien MP must seriously consider his own position when putting his signature to this.  Given the mood of the country right now, he could be voted out.  
 
Neil O’Brien MP must now consider joining the "Self Preservation Society"

Fruitcake

At one end of the table, we had Mr Hurley from the IPC cohorts saying without the £70 add on fee, PPCs would go bust, and at the other end we had Mr Boynes from ParkingEye who who do not (currently) add these fees, yet still recently posted profits of £12 million. 

Both statements cannot be true. 

Snakes_Belly

Fruitcake said:

At one end of the table, we had Mr Hurley from the IPC cohorts saying without the £70 add on fee, PPCs would go bust, and at the other end we had Mr Boynes from ParkingEye who who do not (currently) add these fees, yet still recently posted profits of £12 million. 

Both statements cannot be true. 

One of the questions in the consultation was when debt collection should actually start. Personally I don't think that it should start until it has been proved in court. I think that in reality that it will start after the single tier appeal. If the single tier adjudicators can make judgemental decisons then there should not be such a need for these claims to be heard at court. The pipeline of claims should be a lot smaller that at present by the introduction of the new charges and the single tier appeal.

What they seem to forget is that by delaying this process the courts are still becoming clogged up with these cases and family cases are not heard as quickly as they should thus leaving children vulnerable. 

patient_dream

Fruitcake said:

At one end of the table, we had Mr Hurley from the IPC cohorts saying without the £70 add on fee, PPCs would go bust, and at the other end we had Mr Boynes from ParkingEye who who do not (currently) add these fees, yet still recently posted profits of £12 million. 

Both statements cannot be true. 

I think the committee saw through the whitewash of the 4 stooges

Fruitcake

patient_dream said:

Fruitcake said:

At one end of the table, we had Mr Hurley from the IPC cohorts saying without the £70 add on fee, PPCs would go bust, and at the other end we had Mr Boynes from ParkingEye who who do not (currently) add these fees, yet still recently posted profits of £12 million. 

Both statements cannot be true. 

I think the committee saw through the whitewash of the 4 stooges

I am concerned that they did not.

Snakes_Belly

Fruitcake said:

patient_dream said:

Fruitcake said:

At one end of the table, we had Mr Hurley from the IPC cohorts saying without the £70 add on fee, PPCs would go bust, and at the other end we had Mr Boynes from ParkingEye who who do not (currently) add these fees, yet still recently posted profits of £12 million. 

Both statements cannot be true. 

I think the committee saw through the whitewash of the 4 stooges

I am concerned that they did not.

I think that the committee's understanding of the process and the issues that motorists face is very limited. The four stooges seemed to distance themselves from the "rogue" PPC's.  It was not the most balanced meeting. I suppose they saw the AA as representing the motorist. I thought that the AA came over as fairly neutral.