Code of practice

Wigwamfan

bargepole said:

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.

So the section re illegal add ons in current template response is still correct at this moment in time?   

AnotherForumite

Wigwamfan said:

bargepole said:

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.

So the section re illegal add ons in current template response is still correct at this moment in time?   

Despite what some may advise here, there is nothing ‘illegal’ about escalated charges.

Whether they are enforceable or not is a different matter, all depends on the operators wording on signage and letters.

D_P_Dance

Have you read this?

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/18/surrey-writing-on-womans-jumper-landed-couple-with-fine-when-she-walked-in-bus-lane-15439916/

Have you complained to your MP?

Fruitcake

D_P_Dance said:

Have you read this?

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/18/surrey-writing-on-womans-jumper-landed-couple-with-fine-when-she-walked-in-bus-lane-15439916/

Have you complained to your MP?

What has that got to do about a judicial revue?

fisherjim

D_P_Dance said:

Have you read this?

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/18/surrey-writing-on-womans-jumper-landed-couple-with-fine-when-she-walked-in-bus-lane-15439916/

Have you complained to your MP?

Oh dear DPD you have got to keep up do you have a hangover from the VIP party at the Palace

patient_dream

AnotherForumite said:

Wigwamfan said:

bargepole said:

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.

So the section re illegal add ons in current template response is still correct at this moment in time?   

Despite what some may advise here, there is nothing ‘illegal’ about escalated charges.

Whether they are enforceable or not is a different matter, all depends on the operators wording on signage and letters.

Considering these add-ons derive from the BPA code of practice and the IPC followed, both being unregulated ...... what do you think is their legal authority to do this. PPC's, DRA's, dodgy legals never answer  because there is no answer ? 
You are a PPC, can you answer what the rest fail to do ?

patient_dream

Wigwamfan said:

bargepole said:

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.

So the section re illegal add ons in current template response is still correct at this moment in time?   

Currently what Government has said is correct. Any ruling of a JR has not happened so contine as suggested

Coupon-mad

Yes, nothing has changed in terms of the template defence, as things stand.

The position is as summarised by the RAC Foundation (see link earlier in this thread) in that another Public Consultation and an Impact Assessment will be held asap, due to the DLUHC conceding that they didn't ask enough/the right questions last time (my paraphrasing).

AnotherForumite

patient_dream said:

AnotherForumite said:

Wigwamfan said:

bargepole said:

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.

So the section re illegal add ons in current template response is still correct at this moment in time?   

Despite what some may advise here, there is nothing ‘illegal’ about escalated charges.

Whether they are enforceable or not is a different matter, all depends on the operators wording on signage and letters.

Considering these add-ons derive from the BPA code of practice and the IPC followed, both being unregulated ...... what do you think is their legal authority to do this. PPC's, DRA's, dodgy legals never answer  because there is no answer ? 
You are a PPC, can you answer what the rest fail to do ?

It's simple really:

1. Prominently detail the specific sum that will be added in the event of late payment on the signage; thus forming part of the contract.
2. Include the extra charge (in the event of late payment) in the Notice to Keeper, as POFA allows for the sum specified in the NTK to be payable.

Coupon-mad

Until the Government stop you.