Lichfield Backchester Lane end-of-year update

Boat_to_Bolivia

Umkomaas said:

I'm pretty sure no-one takes the deluded sermons of BPA elder Kelvin Reynolds (a religious preacher I believe) too seriously.  Not even the BPA, perhaps!

If so, how can he look himself in the mirror when members he represents mete such misery on millions?

Haven't religious preachers being doing just that to their own flocks for years?

fisherjim

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Umkomaas said:

I'm pretty sure no-one takes the deluded sermons of BPA elder Kelvin Reynolds (a religious preacher I believe) too seriously.  Not even the BPA, perhaps!

If so, how can he look himself in the mirror when members he represents mete such misery on millions?

Haven't religious preachers being doing just that to their own flocks for years?

IMHO religion  was historically about fear and control, seems to fit the BPA ideals exactly!

Boat_to_Bolivia

fisherjim said:

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Umkomaas said:

I'm pretty sure no-one takes the deluded sermons of BPA elder Kelvin Reynolds (a religious preacher I believe) too seriously.  Not even the BPA, perhaps!

If so, how can he look himself in the mirror when members he represents mete such misery on millions?

Haven't religious preachers being doing just that to their own flocks for years?

IMHO religion  was historically about fear and control, seems to fit the BPA ideals exactly!

My sentiments exactly, but I'll probably get PPR'd for saying so... 

Protest

"if a General Election interrupted that interim process, you can BET that all we'd get is the half-assed version....".

At the present rate a General Election seems certain to interrupt the whole process, which is exactly what the parking operators are banking on.

The Charities Act 2006 was not fully-implemented until 2013, and then only because the Act contained a mandatory  5-year review which recommended action. An Act does not guarantee commitment to action - too often it leads to "Yes Minister" tactics to ensure progress is made slowly, or not at all.  For parking regulation It has taken 14 years to get to this point, 8 of them trying to find the responsible department and getting them to act. It took a Private Member's action to get things onto the statute book.

The problem is not specifically the level of charge, but rather about the legitimacy of the invoice. By allowing "incentive" charges to be used (to get drivers to vacate spaces) the courts have incentivised parking operators to maximise the opportunities for charging - and it seems some are using extreme tactics to achieve that goal. It is that extreme activity that should be regulated out of existence. At present it feels like perfection has become the enemy of good-enough productivity.

Coupon-mad

Seeking perfection with the upcoming Impact Assessment is only required due to the JRs.

Blame the parking industry - and I include the roboclaim thugs in that. Someone funded the JRs and that wasn't just PPCs.  We were nearly there in February 2022 and with any other industry, it would have been over the line by now. No Govt has ever had to regulate an industry that has such a litigious, consumer blame and bullying culture.

The Government were at fault too for kicking the (usually-required) IA can down the road, thinking it would be OK to do it later. Totally underestimating the litigiousness and desperation of this rogue industry who were bound to seize upon the lack of IA as a chance to throw a spanner in the works.

Even worse is the bulk litigation sub-industry which I think is the "extreme activity" that should be regulated out of existence.  They are killing people with CCJs; maybe metaphorically but they are certainly killing credit ratings and financial freedoms & options.

The Code as it stands clobbers most of the rest of the issues and will certainly reduce opportunities to issue PCNs and/or get them as far as court.

Anyway, the Public Consultation is only going to ask questions about the money.  So that must be our focus =

- fairer, proportionate level of charges;

- get rid of the unjustified London levels and stop trying to mirror local authority penalties for the sake of it because these are NOT penalties;

- ban extortionate 'fees' that have caused the exponential growth of 'parking bulk litigators' like DCB Legal and are fees which incentivise DRAs and exist in no other consumer contract debt recovery scenario.

Fruitcake

... and ban charges for not displaying a BB on private land when an occupant of the vehicle has a disability and protected characteristics.

My opinion is that the new CoP as it stood last time there was a consultation breached the EA 2010. I cannot understand for the life of me how a government/government body can produce something that will breach an act of parliament and allow criminal activity.
Oh wait. MPs and government officials are involved.

The second densest material in the known universe is Mangementium.
The densest material in the known universe is Governmentium.

Protest

There was recent excitement at the prospect of DLUHC re-starting the consultation process leading towards the formation of an effective Code of Practice as promised by the 2019 Act. The process was supposed to kick off by 20 July but - guess what - nothing has appeared. This failure  was predicted by the parking industry who now seem to know more about the process than DLUHC or the minister. The industry pundits expected nothing before the summer  recess, and even less during recess. We are so lucky to have them to protect the good motorists from the bad motorists!! Their words, not mine.

 

The minister presumably does understand the issues...

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/18484337.anger-woman-charged-160-misprinted-ticket-b-m-bishop-auckland/

So why is this CoP matter still parked, well beyond its time? Can we issue a PCN ?

Coupon-mad

Patience!  It is coming.

IPC posted something in LinkedIn that might be viewable in the public domain.  I'm not in LinkedIn any more but if you are, maybe read that for the up to date position.

The industry certainly don't know more than the DLUHC and they don't know more than me either.   Don't worry.

There are forumite fingers on the pulse.

Umkomaas

Protest said:

There was recent excitement at the prospect of DLUHC re-starting the consultation process leading towards the formation of an effective Code of Practice as promised by the 2019 Act. The process was supposed to kick off by 20 July but - guess what - nothing has appeared. This failure  was predicted by the parking industry who now seem to know more about the process than DLUHC or the minister. The industry pundits expected nothing before the summer  recess, and even less during recess. We are so lucky to have them to protect the good motorists from the bad motorists!! Their words, not mine.

 

The minister presumably does understand the issues...

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/18484337.anger-woman-charged-160-misprinted-ticket-b-m-bishop-auckland/

So why is this CoP matter still parked, well beyond its time? Can we issue a PCN ?

That article is from 2020, so doesn't even reflect the situation post Feb 2022 publication of the new Code of Practice, nor the subsequent Judicial Reviews promulgated by the private parking industry. It has little relevance - a run of the mill parking charge from easy to beat Smart Parking. 

Protest

At last. Sharpen your pencils folks and don't let this effort fail this time!

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence