Breaking News: Government has announced the statutory Code of Practice, and Enforcement Framework

patient_dream

Isle_of_Wight_man said:

As @patient_dream commented on, it's a shame they did not include planning permission for ANPR and signage, and not retrospective action like Cornwall Council does.

7.1 Use of photographic evidence technology

Many private parking operators use automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology to issue parking charges. The Code prevents parking operators from issuing parking charges unless the photographic equipment is fit for purpose and maintained appropriately and complies with relevant standards and regulations. This may impose a cost to operators who need to update their technology.

This is very clever.  In reality it means than no ticket can be issued as said  .. "ANPR is fit for purpose"

The motorist does not know if the ANPR is fit for purpose so cannot accept a ticket without proof from the operator that their ANPR is fit for purpose
(We already know many are not especially with double dipping)

ihatetrump

And this from 7.3

2. Where parking operators are accepting as evidence for issue of a notice of parking charge images forwarded, copied, uploaded by or stored on an individual’s personal mobile phone or other personal device then, as data controller, the operator must ensure that such images are only kept by the individual capturing the images for the minimal time taken to upload them via an app, webpage or similar secure portal or address supplied by the parking operator, must be satisfied that the image is a true and fair representation e.g. including the accuracy of time stamp, and relates only to the controlled land subject to the relevant conditions.


Any defendant of a PCN that uses this type of picture should be able to drive a coach & horses through this portion of the PPC's evidence - the burden of proof MUST lie with the PPC to prove that their wardens have deleted images as soon as they are uploaded - good luck proving that one!

Half_way

ihatetrump said:

And this from 7.3

2. Where parking operators are accepting as evidence for issue of a notice of parking charge images forwarded, copied, uploaded by or stored on an individual’s personal mobile phone or other personal device then, as data controller, the operator must ensure that such images are only kept by the individual capturing the images for the minimal time taken to upload them via an app, webpage or similar secure portal or address supplied by the parking operator, must be satisfied that the image is a true and fair representation e.g. including the accuracy of time stamp, and relates only to the controlled land subject to the relevant conditions.


Any defendant of a PCN that uses this type of picture should be able to drive a coach & horses through this portion of the PPC's evidence - the burden of proof MUST lie with the PPC to prove that their wardens have deleted images as soon as they are uploaded - good luck proving that one!

So if Norris Cole self ticketing on a residential site at 3:30 in the morning using a phone to take pictures and uploading using the ppc app while at the same time the photos are backed up to his own private  iCloud/ Google account could be in a spot of bother so to speak.

And as for residential own spaces, there could be a whole new can of worms opened up here with regards to landowners

ihatetrump

Half_way said:

So if Norris Cole self ticketing on a residential site at 3:30 in the morning using a phone to take pictures and uploading using the ppc app while at the same time the photos are backed up to his own private  iCloud/ Google account could be in a spot of bother so to speak.

And as for residential own spaces, there could be a whole new can of worms opened up here with regards to landowners

Agreed - a whole nice big can of juicy worms! Once in the Cloud, it can go anywhere - the genie will be out of the bottle.

Not to mention the Data Protection issues.

95Rollers

patient_dream said:

I would imagine that the PPC's are very disappointed in their leaders,, both ATA's who FAILED them

For government, the icing was on the cake with the recent BPA propaganda which said ...

Government proposals  to reduce parking charges will lead to a £19.5 billion hit to the UK economy ?

Whoever the BPA employed to come up with such rubbish ... they should ask for a full refund because parking charges have been reduced to £50 in the new bill and guess what ..... their will be no hit to the economy ?

This was their Brexit Bus! They should really be made accountable for these false sweeping claims. Which economists put that quote together for them? How could they possibly know this? What was the source and facts for this speculative figure?!?!  Again this all needs answering and holding to account for such a statement which was purely concocted for the purpose of trying to deceive the government into backing their claims!?! Did they not think their lies would be found out?!? Maybe they should have gone for a much lower and more realistic figure lol

95Rollers

Zero_Gravitas said:

Did anyone else notice this in the response to the consultation:

"We received 559 responses through the online form and 14 email responses.

We asked respondents to self-identify as parking operators, motorists, landowners or other. The breakdown of respondent types is as follows:

Land owner 30 5.40%

Motorist 455 80.90%

Of which appear to be landowners/parking operators posing as motorists (based on e-mail domain) 8 1.80%

Parking operator 38 6.30%

Other 45 6.60%

Not Answered 5 0.90%

However, we have no means of verifying each respondent or, for example, whether self-identified motorists have a connection with parking operators or landowners."

So they did notice the PPCs lying to influence the outcome - and well done for calling it out!

Could the Parking Industry be anymore corrupt? Or pathetic? or greedy? Or stupid? Or dishonest? Or weak? Or Laughable? or Desperate? 

Isle_of_Wight_man

I have only been PCN'ed once, so far, got off by getting the landowner to cancel.

But, the Parish Council of the small Cornish village tackled the Council to get the car park in question have retrospective planning applied for.

They had to move a ANPR camera because it was catching people driving into their own drives. They moved it in front of a designated parking bay, so it could not be used.

The planning showed signage and where it was located, in fact it was photographed for the application in an entirely different place and in front of a bay, where if a van parked there would obscure the sign!

Snakes_Belly

So an employee of a PPC used a computer/device owned by their employer and posed as a motorist to complete the consultation. They are not the sharpest knives in the drawer! Perhaps they were given time at work or some sort of incentive to complete the consultation. Or maybe some were working from home.  Did not work anyway.

Tapluk3

Well my case is they Dcb are demanding i pay £571.72 for 2 pcns they say were issued in 2016, i am certainly going to contest this in court and hopefully although not till end of 2023 which i think is crazy, the judge will be lenient now the new rules are set to come in place in the near future, but we will see

Fruitcake

With regards to lack of Advertising Consent for signs, I believe this is already covered by Para 12 of the PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, at least in England. 

12(1)The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(2)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.

I would suggest that the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 is a statutory instrument.