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

Fruitcake

@cambi0

I am sure there are decent, honest, and fair parking companies out there; the ones we never hear about because they operate in a fair and ethical manner.

If one PPC folds because it can no longer suck the life out of a car park, there is no reason why another, ethical company cannot step in, and even employ some of the staff from the other PPC.
This would then give a lie to the statement that 40% of car parks would no longer managed, and mean that not everyone would lose their jobs.
Getting rid of ANPR and replacing them with foot patrols would actually increase employment as well. They would just be operated by a different company that isn't a "rogue, scammer, or bloodsucker.*

See, all the BPA and IPC had to do was listen to us instead of wasting money on surveys and financial cost assessments.

"Words used by UK MPs in open parliament.*

Thrugelmir

cambi0 said:

As for the parking companies, well aside from the significant reduction in income, it appears a rather hefty investment will be required in terms of camera equipment and associated IT infrastructure to comply with what is actually now defined as parking, rather than just passing an unsigned entry/ exit ANPR camera. My heart bleeds.

Unfortunately there's never been any free lunches in this world. The person that bears the cost ultimately is the consumer either directly or indirectly. 

patient_dream

bargepole said:

ihatetrump said:

The new code addresses at Paragraph 16 Incentive Schemes.

This is (rightly) directed at prohibiting Operators from incentivising their employees to issue as many PCN's as possible.

Unfortunately I recently lost my case in court to Napier Parking who operate a car park in close proximity to Milton Keynes station that is under a lease/management agreement with Milton Keynes Development Partnership LLP (an entity wholly owned by Milton Keynes Council). The terms/structure of that lease & management agreement are such that MKDP receive normal parking charges as their rent and Napier receive the income derived from PCN's.

So in this case, No PCN's, no income for the operator. In other words the whole bl***y arrangement is just an incentive scheme to issue PCN's 

I have little doubt that many (potentially even the majority) of landowner/PPC agreements are structured such that if the PPC is to make the operation viable then they have to issue PCN's - and as many as possible.

These types of quasi incentive agreements need to be outlawed, as does the practice of Local authorities circumventing the relevant land provisions of PoFA by setting up Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV's) to then enter into commercial agreements. 

All of these points have been conveyed to the policy advisors and Ministers at the DLUHC, and that is why the new CoP robustly addresses the failings of the industry, and places them in a strait jacket for operations going forward. Neil O'Brien MP, who spoke during the debates on the passage of the Bill, is clearly a man on a mission, and when he was announced as the Minister responsible for the parking code, that was effectively Game Over for the parking industry.

This is great news ....  in your opinion if the legals don't back off before court, how would you address a judge about the fakes being banned

I understand what coupon has said regarding letters before claim and telling the legals that the fake is banned and why have they added them.

And now, I assume that any legal adding a banned amount and signing a statement of truth would be in contempt

Redx

Fruitcake said:

@cambi0

I am sure there are decent, honest, and fair parking companies out there; the ones we never hear about because they operate in a fair and ethical manner.

If one PPC folds because it can no longer suck the life out of a car park, there is no reason why another, ethical company cannot step in, and even employ some of the staff from the other PPC.
This would then give a lie to the statement that 40% of car parks would no longer managed, and mean that not everyone would lose their jobs.
Getting rid of ANPR and replacing them with foot patrols would actually increase employment as well. They would just be operated by a different company that isn't a "rogue, scammer, or bloodsucker.*

See, all the BPA and IPC had to do was listen to us instead of wasting money on surveys and financial cost assessments.

"Words used by UK MPs in open parliament.*

Seen that happen several times around here , Asda using parking eye replacing smart parking , Excel being replaced by ECP or Care parking on numerous sites in Greater Manchester ( Ashton Retail Park , Peel Centre , Morrison's supermarket , etc )

Some were notorious black spots , now little is heard about them , no Carmageddon !!

Fruitcake

Redx said:

Fruitcake said:

@cambi0

I am sure there are decent, honest, and fair parking companies out there; the ones we never hear about because they operate in a fair and ethical manner.

If one PPC folds because it can no longer suck the life out of a car park, there is no reason why another, ethical company cannot step in, and even employ some of the staff from the other PPC.
This would then give a lie to the statement that 40% of car parks would no longer managed, and mean that not everyone would lose their jobs.
Getting rid of ANPR and replacing them with foot patrols would actually increase employment as well. They would just be operated by a different company that isn't a "rogue, scammer, or bloodsucker.*

See, all the BPA and IPC had to do was listen to us instead of wasting money on surveys and financial cost assessments.

"Words used by UK MPs in open parliament.*

Seen that happen several times around here , Asda using parking eye replacing smart parking , Excel being replaced by ECP or Care parking on numerous sites in Greater Manchester ( Ashton Retail Park , Peel Centre , Morrison's supermarket , etc )

Some were notorious black spots , now little is heard about them , no Carmageddon !!

Sandhills car park in Devon is now managed by the landowner after DSFP were booted out due to the number of complaints about them. I remember a couple of sites doing this as well.

ihatetrump

Thrugelmir said:

cambi0 said:

As for the parking companies, well aside from the significant reduction in income, it appears a rather hefty investment will be required in terms of camera equipment and associated IT infrastructure to comply with what is actually now defined as parking, rather than just passing an unsigned entry/ exit ANPR camera. My heart bleeds.

Unfortunately there's never been any free lunches in this world. The person that bears the cost ultimately is the consumer either directly or indirectly. 

At least the consumer has choice and with the new signage requirements also comes greater clarity. It will become more of an informed choice with less surprises and no stresses brought upon by aggressive Debt Recovery Agents (good riddance to them).

The overwhelming number of the participants on this board will be ordinary law abiding & gentle citizens who have been caught out in the past by sneaky and underhand schemes operated to extract money from them.

PPC's should not be at all surprised by the anger these schemes have fomented within the wider public. Likewise they should now not be surprised by the overwhelming joy that is being expressed by so many that there is finally a proposal that rebalances the inequity that has existed for far too long.

It's the PPC's that have had too many free lunches for far too long - so yes you're right, no more free lunches - time to pay your dinner money over, dust yourself off and get up and leave.

Snakes_Belly

"The overwhelming number of the participants on this board will be ordinary law abiding & gentle citizens who have been caught out in the past by sneaky and underhand schemes operated to extract money from them"

It seems to happen when motorists are out of their comfort zone such as on holiday. Perhaps we won't see "Wells next to the Sea" appearing so often when the new code comes into force. The Cornish car parks also appear regularly.. 

Trainerman

ihatetrump said:

Thrugelmir said:

cambi0 said:

As for the parking companies, well aside from the significant reduction in income, it appears a rather hefty investment will be required in terms of camera equipment and associated IT infrastructure to comply with what is actually now defined as parking, rather than just passing an unsigned entry/ exit ANPR camera. My heart bleeds.

Unfortunately there's never been any free lunches in this world. The person that bears the cost ultimately is the consumer either directly or indirectly. 

At least the consumer has choice and with the new signage requirements also comes greater clarity. It will become more of an informed choice with less surprises and no stresses brought upon by aggressive Debt Recovery Agents (good riddance to them).

The overwhelming number of the participants on this board will be ordinary law abiding & gentle citizens who have been caught out in the past by sneaky and underhand schemes operated to extract money from them.

PPC's should not be at all surprised by the anger these schemes have fomented within the wider public. Likewise they should now not be surprised by the overwhelming joy that is being expressed by so many that there is finally a proposal that rebalances the inequity that has existed for far too long.

It's the PPC's that have had too many free lunches for far too long - so yes you're right, no more free lunches - time to pay your dinner money over, dust yourself off and get up and leave.

Could not agree more @ihatetrump. The words "nail" "hit" and "head" come to mind. Nice to see these bar stewards crying, isn't it ?

ihatetrump

Could not agree more @ihatetrump. The words "nail" "hit" and "head" come to mind. Nice to see these bar stewards crying, isn't it ?

Oh so true!. The PPC's poked the bear just too many times - aptly explained with credit to Wikipedia:

Bears are lovely creatures that often hibernate and are, for the most part, non-violent. However, when poked, bears can become quite angry. As such, it's always best not to poke the bear.

BrownTrout

Will Hurley, Chief Executive of The International Parking Community (IPC) responds to confirmation (07/02/22) of the new Code of Practice for private parking issued by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities: “The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 provided a clear direction of travel and the onus is now on the private parking sector to adapt and deliver the changes embodied within the Government’s new unified Code as smoothly, quickly and effectively as possible. “I believe the industry has made significant progress over recent years in helping to drive up standards and improving the parking experience for motorists. But, the introduction of new legislation in 2019 has shown that more needs to be done.

Confirmation of the details of the new Code has now provided the certainty and clarity to enable us to do just that. The decisions have been made. It’s now up to everyone in the private parking sector to embrace the new Code and accept collective responsibility to adjust their working practices and make the required changes to fulfil the new requirements. To coin a phrase, ‘we just need to get the job done’! “It will be challenging and there are likely to be some challenges along the way as we move towards full implementation by the end of 2023.

However, I know just how resilient and progressive the industry is and, judging by the steps we have already taken and the comments from many of our Members, I have every confidence the adoption of the new Code will be achieved with minimum delay and upheaval. Through collecting and sharing data, constantly monitoring progress and harnessing a close working relationship with the DLUHC, we can also look ahead with real confidence." “Moreover, I am convinced that the implementation of the unified Code will finally help us to address the doubt and scepticism that has plagued the industry’s public perception for far too long.

The general public and the vast majority of motorists recognise the importance of effective and fair parking enforcement to ensure safety, compliance and accessibility. There is now a clear directive - supported by motoring organisations and our elected representatives - to reassure everyone that balance and fairness are truly at the heart of everything we do

. That all amounts to a wonderful opportunity for all corners of the industry – from landowners and parking operators to retailers, employers, transport providers and leisure venues – to show just how far we go to maintain the highest standards in a service area that plays such a key role in so many lives.”

 "The IPC stands ready to work with DLUHC and other key stakeholders to move through the next stage of the process and provide the framework and clarity operators now need to adopt the new code."

This must have been said through gritted teeth......