Comments please.

Fruitcake

This is a draft of an email I intend to send to my MP. He hasn't been overly proactive by responding directly to my concerns, but he did forward them to Mr Jenrick (who didn't reply), then chased it up by reminding Mr Gove that he (my MP) had not received a reply to my original concerns. He (my MP) eventually received a reply from Neil O'Brien MP, Under Secretary of State for Levelling Up, the Union and Constitution, and forwarded it to me.

This is my intended response, but any suggested/amendments/tweaks would be appreciated. I also urge everyone who comes to this site to query how they can have their say during this crucial stage of the consultation, but obviously not copy and paste my comments or anyone else's. We wouldn't wanted to be tarred with the same brush as the fine upstanding PPCs who copied and pasted responses to the government's consultation.

Although my intended response already runs to two A4 pages, there is so much more I want to say, but I worry that adding more will reduce the impact of my complaints and concerns.

Sir,

I contacted you on a previous occasion about my concerns regarding the consultations on private parking charges. You kindly forward this to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and you recently replied to me by post and attached a response from the Parliamentary Under Secretary for this department, Neil O’Brien MP.

Whilst I appreciate Mr O’Brien’s response, my concern regarding disabled motorists receiving parking charges because they did not display a blue badge does not appear to have been addressed at all.

The blue badge scheme does not apply on private land, yet private parking companies refuse to accept any other indicator of a disability, despite the legal requirements imposed on parking companies by the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for motorists with disabilities. They have had eleven years to resolve this issue yet steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any indicator of a disability except a blue badge.

 

I recently viewed the oral hearing held by the Government Select Committee dealing with the private parking sector, during which a number of witnesses were given the opportunity to speak. These witnesses included the chief executives of the two parking trade associations, the head of a major parking company, the head of a debt collection agency, and the heads of two motoring associations.

What was conspicuously absent at this hearing was any input from those people most affected by parking charges from unregulated private parking companies; people like me, members of the motoring public. I have no association with any of the witnesses at this hearing, none of them represent my interests, and I doubt they represented the interests of any motorist who has ever received a private parking charge.

I believe the direction of this hearing was completely biased towards the interests of the unregulated private parking industry, which is the exact opposite of Sir Greg Knight’s intentions when he put forward his Parking Bill to Parliament.

 

During the public consultation of the proposed Parking Bill code of conduct, and the more recent public consultation concerning the proposed level of charges, both the motoring public and parking companies had their chance to make comments.

However, these comments were tainted by hundreds of repeated copy-and-paste comments from parking operators, and approximately one third of these comments were removed as not being genuine submissions

Parking companies have since made public comments to various news agencies that the majority of respondents to the consultations wanted higher charge levels to be imposed, however this did not take into account the hundreds of fake comments that were disregarded, meaning that the majority of respondents were actually in favour of lower charges that matched those of council charges.

In this oral hearing, the witnesses mentioned numbers and figures to the committee, without any form of proof to back up their claims. Figures appear to have been plucked from the air and quoted as if they were fact, yet remained completely unchallenged by the members of the committee. Not one witness was required to produce proof to the committee, let alone written proof, of their claims.

Some of the figures claimed were contradictory, some were confusing, and I believe at least some of them were untrue.

Allowing only the parking industry and motoring organisations to speak to a parking select committee is unfair, and undemocratic.

I would therefore like to know how people like me and other members of the motoring public can have our say.

 

Yours

Mr F Cake

Coupon-mad

Very good and I wouldn't want to influence your own wording.  As you say, contact with MPs and the DLUHC at this vital time must be in people's own words about their own concerns.

Redx

Pedant mode , check the spelling , because I thought that Greg was one g , not like the bakers , but a well put letter nonetheless 👍👍😁😁

patient_dream

Brilliant letter and to the point.

What we watched with the select commitee was a CARTEL operating by the 4 stooges ?

What is of concern is who in government is a silent member of this cartel.  We have seen so much government sleaze of late and to be blunt, there is a huge incentive for a minister to do the same as those we already know about.

Are we now to assume that Neil O’Brien MP is in charge of this now ?

Umkomaas

During the public consultation of the proposed Parking Bill code of conduct, and the more result public consultation concerning the proposed level of charges, both the motoring public and parking companies had their chance to make comments.

Nice one Fruity. Just one typo - should that read 'recent'?

nicestrawb

Sounds good and I agree the point is really about representation. If you're going to invite parasites to give obviously partisan evidence, what about the other side of the story?  Maybe something about the fact that one of the witnesses was a director at the time, of a dodgy solicitors which is currently being investigated for financial impropriety by the SRA and had to change roles due to a blatant conflict of interest between his involvement in said solicitors, and an apparently independent appeals service which sends so much work their way. So what the chuff was he doing there?

Oh and maybe something about the disconnect between what they are saying and the truth, which the press have covered this week regarding revenues and profits...

But the bottom line is "please listen to people on the other side of the story".

Fruitcake

Thanks for your comments, and proof reading. Typing whilst under the influence of alcohol is not always conducive to coherent communications.

There was a lot more that I wanted to add, such as people with criminal convictions having access to personal data, PCNs being issued on public roads, and lack of checks by the DVLA etcetera, but I wanted to limit it to the equivalent of two sides of A4.
What I really want is a point of contact, a way in so I can to voice my fears, that other people can then use as well. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Le_Kirk

Now that you have corrected "result" to "recent" there is just one more: -

You kindly forward forwarded this to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

adjusted as above.  Excellent response, let's hope you get a similarly considered and well written response from your MP.

Fruitcake

Corrected, amended, and sented to my MP using writetothem.com. This reduced the font size so I added a few more of my concerns.
This included comments about the DVLA releasing personal data to convicted criminals, releasing personal data to a company after it had left a trade association, releasing personal data without determining what the data will be used for yet more intensive checks are carried out when a data request is made by the police, and about the former head of a certain trade association being a convicted sex offender.

Now we wait.

Trainerman

Really well written. I think we should all write in similar vein, otherwise the one sided statements will be believed. I for one will follow up as soon as we have an M.P. ! ( we lost ours as he had been a naughty boy, voting on replacement soon).

Fruitcake

My MP has forwarded my concerns to Neil O'Brien MP with this comment: -

"Thank you for your letter of 28 October in reply to my letter about parking charges on behalf of my constituent Fruity McFruitcake, Fruitcake Folly, Zumerzet Riviera, although I’m afraid it left Mr Fruitcake far from persuaded."

No manure, Sherlock.