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

ihatetrump

KeithP said:

Be careful folks.

All this discussion is likely to get this whole thread removed.

Maybe the Russians are closer than the Ukraine border!

Jonty6262

They don't like it up em

Curlyben

sdmitch said:

Has MSE been infiltrated - seems likes it to me. MSE_JC only joined last July and has posted 23 times 
 

Anyone with MSE_xBlahx are actual paid staff, hence the clear disconnect.

ihatetrump

@Curlyben - I like your signature - think there may now be a few more with low post counts also!

Email addresses are 10 a penny - say no more....

Curlyben

ihatetrump said:

@Curlyben - I like your signature - think there may now be a few more with low post counts also!

Email addresses are 10 a penny - say no more....

I lurk more than I post.
Learnt many years back that MSE would prefer that I keep schtum

bargepole

Can I please ask all posters, old and new, NOT to comment on bans imposed by the Forum Team on individual members.

This will only result in your posts being deleted, or in the worst case, this entire thread being pulled, which would be highly undesirable.

All of the regulars here, who do a sterling job when answering queries from new posters, should bear in mind that you must do so in a friendly manner, regardless of how inane and uninformed the question might be. MSE's forum, their rules.

95Rollers

I recently got a Private Message by MSE saying one of my replies had been removed because I mentioned the first and past name of a dodgy solicitor (signs off statements as being true thst she couldn't possibly ever know!). So I'm gonna go back through my previous posts and edit out names etc so they don't get retrospectively pulled. 

Fruitcake

patient_dream said:

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?

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 ?

We only have the parking ATA's word that the parking industry will shrink. There is no reason to believe that the more reputable PPCs, the ones we never hear about, won't step in to properly and fairly manage car parks. 
If a whole swathe of car parks become available, there will be a free market, and a competitive one at that, for new or existing companies to step in and take over. 

ManaPotion

who are these more reputable PPCs? I ask so that in future I can use their car parks rather than the idiots seen day in day out on this forum...

BelladonnaTook

Please excuse my dozy head here but I'm just reading the new code again and here it says -

2.19 parked/parking

an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle)

Now unless I've missed something elsewhere - it just occurred to me that your car is 'stationary' when you need to read a parking sign at an entrance. You can't read it whilst your car is moving. Not a full, length, wordy sign which goes on about contracts etc.

So shouldn't the new code state:

an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle and where the driver has stopped to read a parking sign at the entrance of a car park)

?

If the response to that is, "there should be signage inside the car park which say the same thing as the one at the entrance and the driver can read that instead"  - well, what's the point of the sign at the entrance?