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

Half_way

cambi0 said:

Wonderful news and a credit to all on this forum who have put in so much time and effort, I am indebted.

The only small sadness is for the inevitable redundancies of parking firm employees who for the most part will be 'normal' people who are just doing what they are told to make a day's wage.  I hope they can gain employment in a constructive sector rather than this parasitic one.

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.

I do chuckle to myself that had I not been issued a PCN that was subsequently overturned by popla, I wouldn't have found this forum and the consultation (which I filled in in very angry and exasperated language), alongside multiple complaints to my mp. So in a way thanks to the PPC for pointing me in the direction to help dig your grave.

I've been involved in event car parking, that is usually in a rural grass field at a county/country show, steam rally's, car rally and similar , as a volunteer raising funds for cancer research, local charity's, national charity's and so on where the money raised from parking charges was collected either at the gate ( money in a bucket) or from the organiser for running the car park.

 There were a few characters involved in this - including a few PPC employees ( aka foot soldiers/self ticketers)  who saw themselves as "pro" and had suggestions that we could increase revenue with various crackpot schemes ranging from the likes of  mobile anpr systems/creating disabled bays etc and issuing what they called fines and so on .

 As for PPC work in general - and for that matter any job - if employed in that sector you should have a reasonable idea of the industry , just as with any other job ..

As for ANPR its a shame the code of practice doesnt go into it further, on its own as a camera system on a pole recording in/outs ( and then not all of them hence the double dip) it is not fit for purpose, any PPC that relies solely on such a system should loose access to the DVLA data base if they have any double dips.

 The system should work as follows:

 ANPR records an overstaying vehicle, car park foot patrol checks to see if vehicle is still present , has a blue badge/evidence of disability and action is then taken as apropiate.

 or when you pay for the pakring you get an image of your vehicle.

 So called miss keying should also not be an issue, if the system is set up correctly and someone miskeys their reg number then the person should get a notification saying reg number incorrect

Snakes_Belly

Well those car parks where the amount you owe is calculated are never going to issue a PCN for an overstay. There will only be PCN's for not parking properly in a bay or parking in a disabled bay without displaying a blue badge. 

They must be making these car parks pay.

There is a similar car park at the Riverside in Stafford. You take a token when you enter and input the token into a machine when you return to the car park. The machine tells you how much to pay and loads the token and then the token releases the barrier. If you lose the token I think you have to pay the daily tariff plus a fee.

Sunday parking in the larger towns (Lichfield and Stafford) is £1.00 all day.  

Castle

Half_way said:

As for ANPR its a shame the code of practice doesnt go into it further, on its own as a camera system on a pole recording in/outs ( and then not all of them hence the double dip) it is not fit for purpose, any PPC that relies solely on such a system should loose access to the DVLA data base if they have any double dips.

 The system should work as follows:

 ANPR records an overstaying vehicle, car park foot patrol checks to see if vehicle is still present , has a blue badge/evidence of disability and action is then taken as apropiate.

 or when you pay for the pakring you get an image of your vehicle.

 So called miss keying should also not be an issue, if the system is set up correctly and someone miskeys their reg number then the person should get a notification saying reg number incorrect

Covered by 6.3 of the new code: (my "Bold").

Where the terms and conditions require the driver to supply their vehicle registration mark at an on-site machine, by telephone or online, the parking operator must have and follow a documented policy and procedure to avoid issuing or enforcing a parking charge in respect of accidental keying errors, including the adoption of technologies that prevent keying errors e.g. by recording the VRM of vehicles entering the land and rejecting those which don’t match on input, and physical checks of photographic images matched to make, model and colour of the vehicle as recorded by DVLA.

BobT36

@Coupon-mad "If I move onto something different it will be ending another scam.  Any suggestions?"

Oh, oh. how about the £12+ "Advancement Fee", "Direct Payment Processing Fee" (or whatever they feel like calling it that day) charge tacked onto imports, for clearance / VAT handling? (by FedEx, Royal Mail, etc etc). That or the TV License letters by Capita (Make it a subscription and stop bothering me, I don't even have a telly! And no I should not have to hand over my personal data just to decline custom)

No-way does EVERY shipment cost that exact same amount, nor does it really cost that much to fill a few automated forms. Also if there's no VAT / Duty to pay, there's no charge, yet the clearance work is still done, so how do only some have that £12 fee? 

The fact that delivery has been paid in full up-front, then they tack on that extra charge is irritating. Even moreso when they do it where it doesn't even apply! Multiple times I've imported VAT / Duty exempt items, then FedEx or the like has had their agent CHANGE the customs procedure code to something that IS liable, then slap it on. I wouldn't put it passed them to then claim the exemption from HMRC and pocket the amount. Takes MONTHs to get sorted too and they often scrap the VAT / Duty charge, and then still try charging their extra "fee", for the presumption that the customer "wants their delivery quicker" (at charge). Really they're just using it as an opportunity for extra cash, and charging YOU £12 to cover the people who don't pay the VAT/Duty. The charge is simply an administrative overhead and if appropriate, should be included in the original delivery charges.

Normally tacking on extra, hidden charges for services that the customer is ONLY informed of after they're raised is illegal, where the customer isn't given the opportunity to consent. Worse when the item is fully delivered, and you get a bill through later. Now if the charge was appropriate to the level of work done for MY delivery, AND I'm informed and given the opportunity to pay up-front, I'd have no complaints and either happily pay, or take my custom elsewhere.

With parking and the above delivery charges, as an honest person I'm happy to pay what I owe and I'm fully informed about and have a choice in whether the (appropriate) charge is raised, but loathe paying what I don't, especially under threat of debt collection etc. 


An unending number of such scams in Rip-off Britain, multiple hands going into your pockets each taking out a few quid, and all the anxiety and time needed to deal with keeping your cash they have no right to get in the first place, and then the debt collector vultures too... argh. THANKYOU for dealing with the parking ones. I'm not joking when I echo other's suggestions of knighthood here, that's what it should be about, little people standing up for little people. Your time & efforts are much appreciated.

The irritating thing is that most of these dodgy schemes are set up purely to make a profit purely from ripping people off, rather than honest business. The sad thing is that they succeed so well because most get frightened and just pay. 

95Rollers

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. 

That's a risk I'll happily take. It cannot be worse than thr current system. I don't know which parking company you own or work for so cannot comment on your M.O as I don't know what it is. 

However there are too many rouge cowboys who brought this on the industry. Nefarious ex-clampers who deliberately muddied the waters with poorly worded small hidden signs, poorly maintained equipment,  unauthorised ANPRs, issung PCNs in contrary to the conditions of the landowner Contract, lying to the courts, using disgusting DRAs and solicitors to questionably coerce money out of people.

I am sure there are ethical operators - BUT sadly too many of your competitors  dragged your industry into the sewers by thinking they could do what they liked to whom they pleased with total impunity!  People had enough, their elected officials listened and had to intervene regulate your industry.

Don't be angry at people like @Coupon-mad or @BrownTrout.  It was your incompetent,  lazy,  dishonest and greedy ATAs mate.  They sat back and did nothing whilst rouge PPCs, ex-clampers, law breakers infested your professional, aggressive DRAs and bent solicitors rinsed the public in the name of "better parking". If the leaders policed things better then the Govt wouldn't have to regulate it like they did with clamping.

There are many parking companies out there which i never see mentioned on this forum and several I see countless times. Maybe the bigger more professional companies should have kicked the ATAs into shape although I'm sure many of them will welcome these changes especially if their business model isn't built around entrapping people with ambiguous methods to manufacture PCNs?  Some PCNs are justified of course.

What are your thoughts @Thrugelmir? do you feel let down by your ATAs for their lack of control to sanction the rogues that led this change? Are you angry with other parking bosses? Apologies if this appears like a gloat *not my intention) - but I'm genuinely interested to hear everyone's perspectives.

Snakes_Belly

@Coupon-mad "If I move onto something different it will be ending another scam.  Any suggestions?"

I think that Coupon Mad would be good in investigative journalism. The death of Jill Dando is still a mystery. She was obviously onto something but what? 

Snakes_Belly

95Rollers 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. 

That's a risk I'll happily take. It cannot be worse than thr current system. I don't know which parking company you own or work for so cannot comment on your M.O as I don't know what it is. 

However there are too many rouge cowboys who brought this on the industry. Nefarious ex-clampers who deliberately muddied the waters with poorly worded small hidden signs, poorly maintained equipment,  unauthorised ANPRs, issung PCNs in contrary to the conditions of the landowner Contract, lying to the courts, using disgusting DRAs and solicitors to questionably coerce money out of people.

I am sure there are ethical operators - BUT sadly too many of your competitors  dragged your industry into the sewers by thinking they could do what they liked to whom they pleased with total impunity!  People had enough, their elected officials listened and had to intervene regulate your industry.

Don't be angry at people like @Coupon-mad or @BrownTrout.  It was your incompetent,  lazy,  dishonest and greedy ATAs mate.  They sat back and did nothing whilst rouge PPCs, ex-clampers, law breakers infested your professional, aggressive DRAs and bent solicitors rinsed the public in the name of "better parking". If the leaders policed things better then the Govt wouldn't have to regulate it like they did with clamping.

There are many parking companies out there which i never see mentioned on this forum and several I see countless times. Maybe the bigger more professional companies should have kicked the ATAs into shape although I'm sure many of them will welcome these changes especially if their business model isn't built around entrapping people with ambiguous methods to manufacture PCNs?  Some PCNs are justified of course.

What are your thoughts @Thrugelmir? do you feel let down by your ATAs for their lack of control to sanction the rogues that led this change? Are you angry with other parking bosses? Apologies if this appears like a gloat *not my intention) - but I'm genuinely interested to hear everyone's perspectives.

Well said.

Snakes_Belly

I agree 95 Rollers.

The case that really affected me was the claim by VCS of the veteran who had lost his legs in Afghanistan. How they could have dragged this man through the courts beggars belief.

patient_dream

BrownTrout said:

bargepole said:

Well, at least Mr Hurley is more of a realist than his counterparts at the BPA, who are still throwing their toys out of the pram.

He seems to have recognised that this is now the new order, and whether you agree with it or not, those are the new rules that all parties have to comply with, so just get on with it. It's not very different from getting a handed down Judgment in Court that is disappointing, but it is what it is and you just have to accept it.

Aye I have to agree with this.  I guess they also want to be seen as playing an active and constructive part 
Now this raises a question @bargepole the whole industry knows why the IPC was set up and they liked the IAS appeals which ruled in the park companies favour.  What is the point of two different ATA's now the two different codes and POPLA/IAS are going in the bin, what is going to be the point of difference between the ATA's, is it simply going to be on price as it will make no difference from 2023 which ATA you are in.
I can see the two merging in time sooner or later
Am i wrong?

You are right BT, there is no need for two ATA's and the new code will make them somewhat redundtant in what will be a shrinking industry

Both will become powerless and as you say, it matters not which ATA the PPC's belong to.
All they can do now do is offer competitive prices for membership as they are only a club giving access to the DVLA

As far as merging, what would they call themselves and in a shrinking industry, as it will be, staff would go and their can only be one CEO ... well I suppose they could share that position or be joint managing directors ..... imagine that ?

And I doubt the BPA would want to take on the stigma of the IPC and everything that comes with. I can however see a price war on membership fees which could well destroy one of them

bargepole

This story goes back a few years, but is worth repeating for newer members who may not have seen it before.

The BPA and IPC constantly bang on about 'protecting landowners' land', but what they really mean is protecting their members' income stream. Back in 2014/2015, when I was helping with the Parking Eye v Beavis case, I visited the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford, to see what all the fuss was about.

At the entrance to the site, there are remnants of a barrier. I discovered that, before PE took over the contract, drivers had to present their shopping receipt to a man at the barrier, and he would then raise the arm to let them out. If a driver hadn't shopped there and had no receipt, they would have to pay £5 to get out. When PE took over, they removed the barrier arm, and installed ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit.

There were 12 retail units on the site, including a Staples (where Mr B overstayed due to their colour printing machine breaking down), a McDonalds, a Matalan, and Home Bargains. Since then, I believe a Costa Coffee outlet has also been added. The car park has around 500 spaces, with the signage prominently and clearly displayed, allowing 2 hours free parking, as was agreed in all three Court hearings.

I tried to speak to the managers or duty managers of all the stores, to get their views on whether they thought to parking regime had a positive or negative effect on their business. I managed to speak to 10 out of the 12, and only one of those (Staples) was in favour of the parking enforcement, saying that it stopped people leaving their cars there all day while they went off to the Station, 500 yards away. Two of them were neutral on the subject, while the other 7 all said that it had a negative effect on their business and takings.

The lady at Home Bargains said that it was often the case that a customer would abandon their loaded trolley in the middle of the shop, and rush off as they realised their 2 hours was nearly up. The Matalan manager said that she used to cancel tickets for customers who produced a receipt, but there were now so many of those that she was spending too much time on it, and was now referring customers to Savills, the managing agent.

Regretfully, and with the benefit of hindsight, I should have done all this before the first hearing at Cambridge County Court, and got statements from all those managers. If that had been in evidence, HHJ Moloney would have been unable to make a finding that the parking scheme was for the benefit of the retailers, and the 'legitimate interest' ruling may not have been made. 

The Court also ruled that the £85 charge was 'broadly' in line with equivalent Council penalties. But directly opposite the Riverside, there is a Council car park, where if you breach the terms you get a £50 PCN, discounted by 50% if paid within 14 days. So what goes around, comes around.