Code of practice

patient_dream

This has nothing to do with protecting landowners. ?
This is all about protecting the motorist from bad practice and rogues with fakes

If landowners want protection, they must do their homework first before they sign a very expensive get out contract.  

The new code and everything that goes with it will also protect landowners and their tenants. especially those in retail parks who are desperate for foot fall

Government is protecting landowners and their customers from rogue traders  and about time

patient_dream

Umkomaas said:

Looks like the Daily Mail is first out of the blocks on this. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10883025/Private-car-park-firms-branded-bullies-bid-block-cutting-maximum-fines-100-50.html

Sir Greg Knighr MP said the government was not naive 

What message will government pass to the motorist and public if they bow down to a scam industry ....... Mr Gove MP needs to be very careful about his choice of words ..."levelling up" ?
The current government is hanging on a thread and if they backtract and allow the mega scam they will be weaker than I ever thought possible ?

Right now they need every vote they can get and if they U-turn on this, does Mr Gove MP and indeed Neil O'Brien MP not understand  that their own jobs are at risk more so than they already are

UNREAL INCOMPETENCE

bargepole

Some of the comments in this thread are way off the mark.

All we know, from the DM article, Private car park firms branded 'bullies' for bid to block cutting maximum fines from £100 to £50 | Daily Mail Online ,  is that some parking firms are trying to launch a Judicial Review of the DLUHC's decision to limit PCNs to £50, and to ban debt collection fees.

This has nothing to do with the Government, or the summer recess of Parliament, it is a matter for a High Court Judge, if and when permission is granted for a JR action to be brought before the Court.

If an action goes ahead, it will be a matter of senior Counsel representing the parking operators and for the Government, submitting written and oral arguments as to why the decision is or is not lawful. But even if the Judge sides with the parking operators, that doesn't necessarily mean the end of the matter - it will then be remitted back to the DLUHC, who may then have to conduct a further consultation and/or impact assessment.

Neil O'Brien MP has made the Department's stance on these issues very clear, and we can only hope he sticks to his guns, and instructs the Government Legal Department to robustly oppose the parking operators' action. There's still a lot of water to pass under the bridge before all this is concluded.

patient_dream

I agree and most on here will understand but the big bottom line is, will the millions of people understand.  Most don't know about the PE Supreme court case and probably most don't know about the new code.

The public/motorist will point fingers at those in government, the law makers regardless what a high court judge says

The DLUHC and Neil O'Brien MP have done a good job and implemented Sir Greg's private bill

Let us hope there is no need for a further consultation as everything has been said.  Again, most people did not know about the consulation but if it happens again, there are millions of motorists who have been hurt by this industry, we must get to them

And the heading ....

Private car park firms are branded 'bullies' for trying to block bid to slash maximum fines from £100 to £50

That should do it ?  Not forgetting the fake add-ons

Coupon-mad

The article says the Government has 'conceded' to the JR threats.

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

The article says the Government has 'conceded' to the JR threats.

I noticed that ..... I wonder ?

ParkingMad

Here is another article from the RAC Foundation:

https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/firms-fight-back-against-reforms-to-parking-on-private-land

BigBrother1984

All this faffing about with a “code” when government could legislate fully as they have done for public car parks and highways under the Traffic Management Act. 

Why does this government not create a statutory instrument under which parking on private land could be enforced the same way as public land? 

The mould for this has already been created under Civil Parking Enforcement used by Local Authorities across the country. It works. It is tried and tested. Why now reinvent the wheel? 

Surely it would be much simpler to copy existing legislation and apply it to private land? 

Government did set out to bring private parking enforcement in line with public parking. So why didn’t they do that? Why are they afraid of creating robust legislation which binds both motorists and those who enforce under law? 

The difficulty with trying to control an industry with a code is that the code is “voluntary” and parking operators can choose to operate outside of the code without DVLA access, without breaking any law as pointed out by Lord Lucas. 

Furthermore it is difficult to enforce consumer contractual arrangements under a code without infringing upon the rights of one or more parties. In order for economic freedom to exist, one industry cannot be singled out without affecting all other industries in how they contract with their customers and recover unpaid debts. The code will therefore never be able to solve the problems. 

But creating “proper” parking legislation will, with the assistance of the DfT (who understands parking, unlike the DLUHC). IMO this is the only way we will ever see an end to the private parking debacle in this country.  

Coupon-mad

I disagree.

Statutory powers cannot and must never be handed to the ex-clampers and motley crew of robo-claim aggressors. It is bad enough that they were handed 'keeper liability'.

Look how they have abused that power.

 one industry cannot be singled out without affecting all other industries in how they contract with their customers and recover unpaid debts.

But the Govt already have a decade ago, with 'keeper liability'.  No other trader-consumer relationship allows a stranger to the contract to be bound.

As for how other traders collect contractual debts, they use CSA compliant DRAs who don't add costs, they deduct a %.

Which is exactly what DRPLUS used to do before some of 'em allegedly conspired to fix their greedy unjust enrichment slice of the 'extra pie' at £70.

AnotherForumite

As for how other traders collect contractual debts, they use CSA compliant DRAs who don't add costs, they deduct a %.

Maybe they should…

If there are zero consequences for withholding payment, there is also zero incentive for people to pay what’s due. 

When a debt is pursued via the courts, it is accepted that any costs (all be them limited) are to be covered by the debtor if the creditor prevails; therefore, it is not unreasonable for this also to be the case pre-litigation i.e if someone owes you £100, you want the whole £100 back; it’s what your owed after all.

If someone refuses to pay you and your hand is forced to either a) spend time and money chasing what’s due; or b) use the services of a company to assist you to recover it; why on earth should you be left out of pocket.