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

Coupon-mad

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

They definitely did not, going by the weak questioning and then this memo, where the only chink of light is Steve Gooding's input.

The AA were hopelessly uninformed and weak on the false £70.

Fruitcake

From memory, the RACF rep said he did not object to the £70 in principle. At least you can eat a chocolate teapot.

patient_dream

Coupon-mad 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

They definitely did not, going by the weak questioning and then this memo, where the only chink of light is Steve Gooding's input.

The AA were hopelessly uninformed and weak on the false £70.

I was not referencing the actual committee broadcast ? which was pathetic.

Reading your links and ...
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"

And that is what the BPA do not want to hear.   What part of that paragraph will Neil O’Brien maybe not understand

Umkomaas

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 don't think there was any of the committee sharp enough, or on the ball enough, to see through an open window, let alone to cut through the smoke and mirrors shoved at them at the meeting. The questioning was benign, almost sycophantic.  Not one of the members took any of the parking sector reps to task, especially in regard to the wild statistical bilge they were spewing. 

patient_dream

Umkomaas 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 don't think there was any of the committee sharp enough, or on the ball enough, to see through an open window, let alone to cut through the smoke and mirrors shoved at them at the meeting. The questioning was benign, almost sycophantic.  Not one of the members took any of the parking sector reps to task, especially in regard to the wild statistical bilge they were spewing. 

Totally agree, it was a farce 
However their report does clearly say that they agree that charges should be in line with councils

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

From memory, the RACF rep said he did not object to the £70 in principle. At least you can eat a chocolate teapot.

No he didn't!  The RACF are better than that.

Jack Cousens of the AA sadly uttered that.

Should have done his homework because that was shocking. I am aware that certain more clued-up jaws hit the floor and not just mine (not saying whose) but he was considered by some parties to have let the side down with that clueless comment.

Coupon-mad

Here's a positive!

People can now use that quote from Steve Gooding about £70 being too high for a template letter. and the fact the Select Committee agree with the RACF expert, effectively saying that the costs appear to be exaggerated, in their WS as an exhibit.

People can also add something like this as an argument to support the point:

One of the main criticisms of the pre-action rules is that they have added to the expense of civil litigation, whether for large or low value claims.  Although not specific to small claims, the Commercial Court Guide (section B3) makes it clear that parties are not expected to engage in elaborate or expensive pre-action procedures.  It encourages restraint.  The requirement of proportionality is intended to ensure that parties do not spend too much time dealing with pre-action steps.

The pre-action protocol:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

"2 AIMS OF THE PROTOCOL 2.1 This Protocol’s aims are to –  

 - encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue)" 

 Parties are expected to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner and the costs of complying with the PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS ('PDPACP') must be proportionate to the sums at stake. 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

Proportionality

4. A pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction must not be used by a party as a tactical device to secure an unfair advantage over another party. Only reasonable and proportionate steps should be taken by the parties to identify, narrow and resolve the legal, factual or expert issues.

5. The costs incurred in complying with a pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction should be proportionate (CPR 44.3(5)). Where parties incur disproportionate costs in complying with any pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction, those costs will not be recoverable as part of the costs of the proceedings.

zigg123

Coupon-mad said:

Here's a positive!

People can now use that quote from Steve Gooding about £70 being too high for a template letter. and the fact the Select Committee agree with the RACF expert, effectively saying that the costs appear to be exaggerated, in their WS as an exhibit.

People can also add something like this as an argument to support the point:

One of the main criticisms of the pre-action rules is that they have added to the expense of civil litigation, whether for large or low value claims.  Although not specific to small claims, the Commercial Court Guide (section B3) makes it clear that parties are not expected to engage in elaborate or expensive pre-action procedures.  It encourages restraint.  The requirement of proportionality is intended to ensure that parties do not spend too much time dealing with pre-action steps.

The pre-action protocol:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

"2 AIMS OF THE PROTOCOL 2.1 This Protocol’s aims are to –  

 - encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue)" 

 Parties are expected to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner and the costs of complying with the PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS ('PDPACP') must be proportionate to the sums at stake. 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

Proportionality

4. A pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction must not be used by a party as a tactical device to secure an unfair advantage over another party. Only reasonable and proportionate steps should be taken by the parties to identify, narrow and resolve the legal, factual or expert issues.

5. The costs incurred in complying with a pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction should be proportionate (CPR 44.3(5)). Where parties incur disproportionate costs in complying with any pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction, those costs will not be recoverable as part of the costs of the proceedings.

Hi I am trying to find references to where/when Steve Gooding stated £70 being too high for a template letter. Best I can find is below. I would prefer not to just state without rpoviding a link and/or verifying the actual quote is on record

https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/jump-in-number-of-private-parking-companies

zigg123

zigg123 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Here's a positive!

People can now use that quote from Steve Gooding about £70 being too high for a template letter. and the fact the Select Committee agree with the RACF expert, effectively saying that the costs appear to be exaggerated, in their WS as an exhibit.

People can also add something like this as an argument to support the point:

One of the main criticisms of the pre-action rules is that they have added to the expense of civil litigation, whether for large or low value claims.  Although not specific to small claims, the Commercial Court Guide (section B3) makes it clear that parties are not expected to engage in elaborate or expensive pre-action procedures.  It encourages restraint.  The requirement of proportionality is intended to ensure that parties do not spend too much time dealing with pre-action steps.

The pre-action protocol:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

"2 AIMS OF THE PROTOCOL 2.1 This Protocol’s aims are to –  

 - encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue)" 

 Parties are expected to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner and the costs of complying with the PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS ('PDPACP') must be proportionate to the sums at stake. 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

Proportionality

4. A pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction must not be used by a party as a tactical device to secure an unfair advantage over another party. Only reasonable and proportionate steps should be taken by the parties to identify, narrow and resolve the legal, factual or expert issues.

5. The costs incurred in complying with a pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction should be proportionate (CPR 44.3(5)). Where parties incur disproportionate costs in complying with any pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction, those costs will not be recoverable as part of the costs of the proceedings.

Hi I am trying to find references to where/when Steve Gooding stated £70 being too high for a template letter. Best I can find is below. I would prefer not to just state without rpoviding a link and/or verifying the actual quote is on record

https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/jump-in-number-of-private-parking-companies

aaah see the first post link sirry

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