Parking stories in the News/media

Thorndorise

Whatever2023 said:

I know that a large percentage of people are in this group because they failed to read something (signage), but why not change the habit and reserve judgment until you have read it (I’ve not seen it BTW).

Rarely do I respond to things such as this...but

The reason why everyone is jumping up and down as this is an utterly disingenuous act it smacks of desperation and deliberate motivation to draw attention away from the DLUHC as well as try to show that combined they will better serve their operators (rather than motorists) - now this in itself is fine (they are there to represent the operators not the motorists), however...

Most of the people on here come here because Operators failed to adhere to their relevant organisations Code of practice, whether it be correct signage placement, non-POFA conformity or scare tactics by them and their cronies.

So much so that this forum therefore exists. most of the folk on here are genuine motorists and are not trying to get off or play the system, what they are doing is leveraging the expertise developed in an awful mess of terrible companies that don't even follow basic practices of small-medium sized businesses (one example being how many IPC members actually have the mandated complaints policy on their website  - it's 18 out of 79 btw).

Sadly, when companies don't follow the rules, the motorist shouldn't have to pay! 

patient_dream

Thorndorise said:

Whatever2023 said:

I know that a large percentage of people are in this group because they failed to read something (signage), but why not change the habit and reserve judgment until you have read it (I’ve not seen it BTW).

The reason why everyone is jumping up and down as this is an utterly disingenuous act it smacks of desperation and deliberate motivation to draw attention away from the DLUHC 

Desperation is now the least of their problems
You could see this an act of piracy

Bookends

And still they fight on.....

£10,000 legal row over English-only parking charge notice continues (nation.cymru)

Umkomaas

Bookends said:

And still they fight on.....

£10,000 legal row over English-only parking charge notice continues (nation.cymru)

The OPS Llangrannog debacle could hopefully bite them on the !!!!!! here!

Fruitcake

Whatever2023 said:

I know that a large percentage of people are in this group because they failed to read something (signage), but why not change the habit and reserve judgment until you have read it (I’ve not seen it BTW).

@Whatever2023 You are correct, a lot of people join this forum because the have failed to read something (signage), but a lot of people here have failed to read something (signage) because the something to read (signage) is wholly inadequate and incapable of forming a contract with terms and conditions so tiny they are unreadable, or contradictory and confusing, or signs damaged or hidden behind foliage or round corners out of sight.

Then there are the unregulated parking companies who fail to read something (a residential lease) before issuing a parking charge notice to a motorist who has an unfettered right to park and a right to quiet enjoyment.
There are also unregulated parking companies who fail to read their own landowner or landholder contract, or fail to read a map,  and issue parking charges outside the area where they are contracted to operate.
There are unregulated parking companies that fail to read and comply with their own trade association's code of practice.
There are unregulated parking companies that fail to read the Equality Act 2010 and issue parking charges to genuinely disabled motorists because they refuse to recognise any indicator of a disability other than a disabled blue badge, despite the fact that the blue badge scheme does not apply on private land. That scheme is something else that unregulated private parking companies fail to read.
There are unregulated parking companies that fail to read the Alternative Dispute Regulations 2015 because they only allow a month maximum for said dispute resolution (second stage appeal) and not twelve months as mandated by the Act.
There are unregulated parking companies that fail to read the Town and Country Planning Acts and install pole mounted ANPR scameras without obtaining planning permission, and install signs without obtaining Advertising consent, the latter being a criminal offence.

You say some of us should reserve judgment until we have read the combined code of practice, so please will you explain why the unregulated parking industry and/or individual unregulated companies have failed to read the above, and anything else relevant, or do you think instead they have read it all but choose not to comply with any or all of it?

Coupon-mad

Personally, I can't wait to read the much vaunted 'work' of the BPA and IPC.

Likely to be a mix of everything they brought to the table in 2020, most of which was not accepted by the DLUHC.

Talk about throwing the toys out of the pram!

What a complete and utter waste of time.  All it has achieved is surely to pee off Ministers even more than before, giving the DLUHC more resolve (I hope) and it temporarily fooled the more idiotic press who swallowed the rhetoric in the press release.

It's all just fish & chip paper (destined for the bin) and will be strangled at birth.

1505grandad

Also failing to read all the photos re double dip.

Nellymoser

@Fruitcake super clear response post to whatever2023 

PPCs have a long list of failings. I still find it astonishing they accuse and charge motorists for not adhering to their company's 'rules' when they themselves persistently fail to adhere to their business 'rules' 

Nellymoser

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/26/private-car-parks-refuse-to-cap-fines-new-code-of-conduct/

Not much new in this article apart from reporting the ATAs new code will not include caps on parking penalties or controls on debt collectors.

I won't take Whatever2023 advice and reserve judgment till I've read the code. I think that's unfair and will only benefit the private parking industry. 

Umkomaas

Oh dear. Poor legal advice along with a poorly pleaded case from BWL ultimately cost Car Park Management Services almost 87 times the value of the initial £100 charge - £8,668. At first, the judge awarded £840 against them, with legal costs taking this to £1,999, but CPMS somewhat unwisely appealed the decision.  The esteemed one saw the appeal fail **, with the ensuing final bill for CPMS being more than quadrupled. 

https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/blog-3/parking-company-loses-8668-over-100-ticket-after-bw-legal-services-poor-pleading

** Just a Q to @Coupon-mad, @bargepole, @Johnersh does this have persuasive effect on future poorly pleaded cases?