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

Snakes_Belly

ihatetrump said:

Snakes_Belly said:

If the discount applies until after the Single Tier Appeals Service I doubt that many would go to court. 

I think that the pipeline of cases reaching court stage will be greatly reduced. 

And with that the Justice Department will no doubt breath a huge sigh of relief - they can then get down to the real business of bringing criminals to justice - tax dodging PPC's may be a good place to start - a real double whammy.

And removing children who are subject to domestic abuse. 

Jenni_D

Jenni_D said:

I'm not 100% sure (I'll need to look it up) but I think the £300 level is for the amount claimed before any costs of bringing the claim are added. (e.g. if filing the claim was £19 - a number that rings a bell - then you can't file a claim for, say, £282 then add the £19 to bring it above the £300 threshold - the claimed amount itself must reach the threshold). I think this same approach applies for any legal (solicitor) costs.

I've had a look but I can't find anything conclusive. I did find the link below, and it says:

The value of the claim below £3,000 is split into three categories with a different rule about awarding expenses for each. If the value of your claim is:

• up to £300 - no expenses can be awarded 
• more than £300 but less than or equal to £1,500 - the expenses awarded by the sheriff may not exceed £150 
• more than £1,500 but less than or equal to £3,000 - the expenses awarded by the sheriff may not exceed 10% of the value of the claim.

Based on this it suggests that a Sheriff would award costs on the basis of court fees plus additional expenses, up to a maximum of £150 (for a PPC claim where there are multiple PCNs) and generally follow the 10% rule.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/legal-system-s/taking-legal-action-s/going-to-court-using-simple-procedure-s/simple-procedure/costs-of-civil-court-action-using-simple-procedure/

Fruitcake

Despite all the good news, I am still annoyed and disappointed that the blue badge and only the blue badge is mentioned over and over as the only recognised indicator of a disability.

I know the EA 2010 is mentioned, and PPCs are told to give consideration to this, but a simple comment in the CoP saying that other documentation concerning a disability should also be accepted in addition to a blue badge.
This could be a letter from a recognised medical practitioner, or a workplace disability sticker for example.

bargepole

Umkomaas said:

On the basis of your response, what is the most a motorist can expect to pay for a lower level breach outside of London? 

I'd say - £50 NoPC, £35 court filing fee, £50 fixed solicitor costs, (possibly) £25 court hearing fee = £160.
 

Yes that seems to be correct. Given that instructing an advocate to argue their case, which will cost ~ £130 and they won't get that back unless the Defendant can be shown to have behaved unreasonably, it makes no commercial sense to pursue single ticket cases to Court.

The_Slithy_Tove

bargepole said: it makes no commercial sense to pursue single ticket cases to Court.

Pour encourager les autres.

bargepole

Pour encourager les autres.

That would be true if they won most cases. But they don't.

This cartoon sums up the position:

Coupon-mad

Very apt indeed!  Might even get a wry, resigned chuckle from @Thrugelmir or @AnotherForumite.

Onwards and upwards. And most PPCs can only go upwards from where they were.  As for the DRAs, there are no words for those bullies but what goes around, comes around, perhaps.

The Explanatory document (Impact Assessment style) that accompanies the Code of Practice deals with BPA/Mazars' so-called Impact Assessment:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice-explanatory-document-how-was-it-developed-and-what-will-it-change

There are no flies on Neil O'Brien MP at the DLUHC:

"The British Parking Association (BPA) commissioned an impact assessment in early 2021 that suggested the changes to charges could result in significant loss of income to operators, with potential significant impacts to business viability.

This provides one view of the possible economic impact. However, this was not a common theme of parking industry responses to the public consultations that we have run, which focused instead on the deterrent effect of parking charges. Moreover, we consider that some of the assumptions contained within the industry assessment may overstate impacts...  "

Thrugelmir

Coupon-mad said:

Very apt indeed!  Might even get a wry, resigned chuckle from @Thrugelmir or @AnotherForumite.

@Coupon-mad Full credit to you. Is an area that needs complete reform and overhaul.  Better to remain grounded though. Throw a pebble into a pond and watch the ripples. Actions often have unintended and unexpected consequences. Viability is at the core of most business decisions. i.e. might as gain planning permission to build a block of flats rather than operate a carpark.  

Hopefully you'll next address where and how people park................ be of greater benefit to the wider community. 

Coupon-mad

No I am still a bit busy...but thanks for (apparently) being the first in the industry to say that to me.

I appreciate it, because it was damn difficult, time-consuming and without going into detail (but it was in the public domain anyway) some stuff was only grabbed from the jaws of defeat very late.  I've only just drawn breath.

Lots of consumers and groups have contacted me but you are the first to say that from a position that appears connected to PPCs.

Good and fair PPCs: welcome into the light...!

PPCs will gave to change tack in future, and might prefer being paid by retailers for proper 'private land management' services and being of greater benefit to the wider community by learning some pro-shopper/resident/consumer ethics and Equality Act stuff, which is my work background.

Wider community........in Sussex you mean?  There are a few PPCs here that need to shape up or ship out.

might as gain planning permission to build a block of flats rather than operate a carpark.

Fine by me.  People need affordable homes. Just without some ex-clamper infesting the area.

If I move onto something different it will be ending another scam.  Any suggestions?

Where and how people park wasn't the problem except in accessible bays, etc., and that's been dealt with in the Code.

A pebble wasn't thrown into your communal pond, it was more of a series of hand grenades, I like to think.  Not just from me.

ihatetrump

@Coupon-mad - Just to echo the comments that have gone before and a hearty thank you for the tireless crusade that you have embarked on over the last 15+ years. Thanks also to @bargepole for his equally sterling efforts.

"The British Parking Association (BPA) commissioned an impact assessment in early 2021 that suggested the changes to charges could result in significant loss of income to operators, with potential significant impacts to business viability.

This provides one view of the possible economic impact. However, this was not a common theme of parking industry responses to the public consultations that we have run, which focused instead on the deterrent effect of parking charges. Moreover, we consider that some of the assumptions contained within the industry assessment may overstate impacts...  "

As per my earlier comments on this same thread, Mazars are the auditors of the British Parking Association (BPA) and they have been for the last 10+ years. Auditors are required to be independent and there is a strict (204 page) Code of Ethics published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) comprehensively documenting various circumstances that may constitute a threat to that independence.

In accepting the commissioning of the impact assessment by their client, Mazars would certainly appear to be in borderline territory of a breach and a conflict of interest. Thank goodness the Steering Group took the stance they did in standing up to the Mazars assessment. In the accounts of the BPA, Mazars are paid more for their non-audit work than their audit work. If the BPA have any kahunas, they should dispatch with Mazars (who are French controlled - not that I have any axe to grind against the French  ) and at least appoint a largely British firm to conduct their audit - and if they need additional advisory work (they might need a lot of it now following the new COP!!!) - they should select an alternative advisor.