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

Fruitcake

ManaPotion said:

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...

The ones that are members of an ATA, but you never see them mentioned on this forum. There are probably some that are not a member of an ATA because the car parks they manage don't need them to be a member. For example, ones where there's someone at the entrance taking money. If you don't pay, you can't park. No need to get keeper details so need to pay an ATA in order to get it.

Many landowners either manage their own car parks, or feel they don't need to be managed at all because there has never been a parking problem.

Averagestrawb

The 5 minute cooling off period seems a bit short, but if signage is sorted and simplified then I guess it could work. It will mean people will get fined by anpr a lot more for being stuck in parking queues but then I guess the single appeals process will sort that and the PPCs will soon learn that it's a waste of time trying to issue fines for that 

Fruitcake

PPCs cannot issue fines.

Umkomaas

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?  

The entrance sign is essentially a warning to motorists that they are entering private land and the car park is 'managed'. A large 'P', plus the parking restrictions/allowances, the name of the PPC, and a few words referring the driver to the more detailed signage (the contract) within the car park is the current model.

This is the BPA's recommended example, the IPC version is similar. 

Averagestrawb

Averagestrawb said:

The 5 minute cooling off period seems a bit short, but if signage is sorted and simplified then I guess it could work. It will mean people will get fined by anpr a lot more for being stuck in parking queues but then I guess the single appeals process will sort that and the PPCs will soon learn that it's a waste of time trying to issue fines for that 

Lol - true.

The_Slithy_Tove

Averagestrawb said:

The 5 minute cooling off period seems a bit short, but if signage is sorted and simplified then I guess it could work. It will mean people will get fined by anpr a lot more for being stuck in parking queues but then I guess the single appeals process will sort that and the PPCs will soon learn that it's a waste of time trying to issue fines for that 

I can see this being one of the bigger bones of contention, particularly in car parks where ANPR checks you in, and then you are expected to pay at the machine or by phone/app within a short period. Leaving aside when the consideration period starts (should be when you actually park up on your space, not when you enter the car park), it can easily take more than 5 minutes if you have to queue at the P&D machine, or end up "fighting" with the pay by phone or pay by app system, especially if you have to download and register with yet another parking app.

Fruitcake

The CoP does also mention that the parking period does not begin when a vehicle passes an ANPR camera, but begins when the motorist leaves the vehicle in a parking space, or buys a ticket, or enters a VRM.
I believe the consideration period is the minimum time that should be allowed, after a motorist has actually parked their vehicle.

Umkomaas

Fruitcake said:

The CoP does also mention that the parking period does not begin when a vehicle passes an ANPR camera, but begins when the motorist leaves the vehicle in a parking space, or buys a ticket, or enters a VRM.
I believe the consideration period is the minimum time that should be allowed, after a motorist has actually parked their vehicle.

That's my reading of it. But I suspect that PPCs might be seeing it as a potentially exploitable chink of light.

patient_dream

Fruitcake said:

The CoP does also mention that the parking period does not begin when a vehicle passes an ANPR camera, but begins when the motorist leaves the vehicle in a parking space, or buys a ticket, or enters a VRM.
I believe the consideration period is the minimum time that should be allowed, after a motorist has actually parked their vehicle.

That's how I read it.  As ANR are fixed to a number plate in and out, it rather makes ANPR redundant and will stop double dipping.  
If it's a free time limited car park with no pay machines. they would need wardens or get expensive CCTV to cover the whole car park

NCC1701-A

Patient dream posted this extract from code of practice earlier:

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.

Does anyone know what are the relevant standard and regulations? (I believe councils can't use ANPR for their car parks - so are there in fact any?). 

And who will audit/ confirm they are fit for purpose and maintained? Will the BPA & IPC think this is something can do given their absent record on auditing PPCs to date?