REVIVING THE PRIVATE PARKING BILL

Protest

patient_dream said:

prowla said:

I certainly hope that laws are enacted for this, as in my opinion it is the biggest nation-wide scam in operation in our country.

................. until the code of practice is law which by the way it is...................

The BPA / IPC new code is just cloud dreaming and a very feeble attempt to beat government

Sorry, the Code of Practice is not LAW. The 2019 Act (which is LAW) requires the Govt to generate a Code and supporting arrangements, and we can see where that has got us so far. There are hundreds of laws on the statute book that have not been properly completed. This must not be another.

Coupon-mad

Agreed.  On all counts.

The MHCLG (as they were at the start) were very naive and it still grates with me, after everything they'd heard, that in Autumn 2021 they basically coached PPCs how to achieve £170 PCNs. Paved the way.  Taught them how to make the £70 'part of the contract'. Astonishing.

Protest

Massive conflict of interest between "local government" interests and "motorist" interests. Prior to Sunak taking an interest as Minister I think DLUHC prefered to ignore private parking as beneath them, best left to Transport or anyone else who wanted it. And they reverted to their own normal very quickly post-Sunak.

DLUHC Permanent Sec needs to see this issue as her Horizon/Vennells moment, where she is allowing motorists to be penalised daily by a system that she and her organisation has failed to regulate. And Parliament needs to ask "Why?"

 

Hoenir

The_Slithy_Tove said:

saajan_12 said:

Genuine question, what do people think the alternative is - fully understand the problems with the current situation, which is rife with false positives, escalates in £ terms quickly and clogs up the courts. However what's do people think the alternative is on the basis that

a) there are some areas with limited public parking compared to the demand, 
b) as such, there is a desire to control parking to either charge or keep space for residents / customers of a business
c) not everyone is honest, some may fail to pay the charge / get the permit, and if the claim is limited to the price of the ticket then there's no incentive against just not paying and hoping they don't catch up to you
d) it might not be feasible to install barriers plus the staffing to let cars out if there's an issue (without increasing parking costs)

I don't think people are saying private parking shouldn't be "managed", it's just that "management" is being misused as an excuse for profiteering rather than actually managing parking. The new CoP goes some way to addressing this. Other suggestions (which will reduce the PPCs' income for which we'll play our smallest violin) include:

• Less "officious" ticketing in residential car parks, allowing genuine failures to display permits, visitors, loading and delivery vehicles, easier cancellation
• Not "managing" residential parking at all when there's not a problem (aside: I stayed in an apartment in Tenby recently. Right by the beach, and parking is generally tight and costs. Yet while there were permits, the only enforcement was the caretaker would place a polite notice on vehicles not displaying a permit. There didn't seem to be any issue of day-tourists taking the p***).
• Not enforcing retail parking out of hours, or at other times when there's not really an issue. If you want to stop the local "yoof" having an inpromtu car meet, close a barrier in the evening.
• Allowing easy appeals via retailers in retail car parks for genuine customers who have made a mistake or overstayed due to a long shopping trip/meal/etc.
• Use a barrier system where practical, such that you have to pay for the time on site - the Forestry Commission do this in their car parks, and it works fine.
• Not issuing a ticket for trivial infringements, like parking on the line
• Not making up ridiculous rules just to get income, e.g. PE's ruse to make people guess how long they've been there even though the "system" knows exactly, or allowing people to pay at any point during (or even after) their stay for time actually spent in the car park (all technologically easy to do).

I could go on.

None of this addressess the issue that some people will happily do what they want when they want. If anything it's becoming a greater and greater problem. As there's many people who seem to lack legs.  They need to park with feet of their final destination. When caught they have no hesitation in lying, bending or being economical with the truth. Says much about about the FU culture in the UK these days. In particular the aggressive nature of motorists. 

Umkomaas

Hoenir said:

The_Slithy_Tove said:

saajan_12 said:

Genuine question, what do people think the alternative is - fully understand the problems with the current situation, which is rife with false positives, escalates in £ terms quickly and clogs up the courts. However what's do people think the alternative is on the basis that

a) there are some areas with limited public parking compared to the demand, 
b) as such, there is a desire to control parking to either charge or keep space for residents / customers of a business
c) not everyone is honest, some may fail to pay the charge / get the permit, and if the claim is limited to the price of the ticket then there's no incentive against just not paying and hoping they don't catch up to you
d) it might not be feasible to install barriers plus the staffing to let cars out if there's an issue (without increasing parking costs)

I don't think people are saying private parking shouldn't be "managed", it's just that "management" is being misused as an excuse for profiteering rather than actually managing parking. The new CoP goes some way to addressing this. Other suggestions (which will reduce the PPCs' income for which we'll play our smallest violin) include:

• Less "officious" ticketing in residential car parks, allowing genuine failures to display permits, visitors, loading and delivery vehicles, easier cancellation
• Not "managing" residential parking at all when there's not a problem (aside: I stayed in an apartment in Tenby recently. Right by the beach, and parking is generally tight and costs. Yet while there were permits, the only enforcement was the caretaker would place a polite notice on vehicles not displaying a permit. There didn't seem to be any issue of day-tourists taking the p***).
• Not enforcing retail parking out of hours, or at other times when there's not really an issue. If you want to stop the local "yoof" having an inpromtu car meet, close a barrier in the evening.
• Allowing easy appeals via retailers in retail car parks for genuine customers who have made a mistake or overstayed due to a long shopping trip/meal/etc.
• Use a barrier system where practical, such that you have to pay for the time on site - the Forestry Commission do this in their car parks, and it works fine.
• Not issuing a ticket for trivial infringements, like parking on the line
• Not making up ridiculous rules just to get income, e.g. PE's ruse to make people guess how long they've been there even though the "system" knows exactly, or allowing people to pay at any point during (or even after) their stay for time actually spent in the car park (all technologically easy to do).

I could go on.

None of this addressess the issue that some people will happily do what they want when they want. If anything it's becoming a greater and greater problem. As there's many people who seem to lack legs.  They need to park with feet of their final destination. When caught they have no hesitation in lying, bending or being economical with the truth. Says much about about the FU culture in the UK these days. In particular the aggressive nature of motorists. 

Do you think there's 12 million getting caught every year?

h2g2

I, and a few other people at my block of flats, have a plan to talk to our new MP largely about leasehold reform but it has a lot of relevancy to private parking - especially on residential estates. (She's a leaseholder herself, so also has an interest in that.)

My rough agenda is:

• Fixing the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) to have a far more sensible approach to awarding costs. Not directly relevant here, but it would open a route to have residential cases handed pro-actively at this more specialised stage.
• Private Parking Code of Practice to explicitly state it is not allowed to issue parking charges to residents in residential car parks.
• The draft implies it by stating an allowable charge for "non-residents parking", and not listing an allowable charge for residents.
• Publicly searchable court records. It would be fantastic to be able to search for cases and reliably find an official source. Especially if we can find ones involving the same parking company, and point out that "[PPC] relies on Beavis in this case despite knowing it is not relevant, having been told so in the similar [same PPC] vs J Blogs case".
• Some way to formally deny a debt and give the claimant some length of time (probably between 3 and 12 months depending on the amount) to start proceedings to recover it before it gets statute barred. It would basically stop CCJ clamping.
• Guidance that a tenant or leaseholder with an allocated or demised parking space is, and always has been, the "owner or occupier" of that parking space for the purposes of POFA, unless the tenancy/leasehold agreement specifically says otherwise.
• If a principle employs an agent, and responds to a complaint about their agent with something along the lines of "you need to take this up with the agent" that should be automatically considered unreasonable behaviour on their part.
• Unless they have a contract with the customer with a requirement that the customer to complain to the agent first and follow a reasonable complaint procedure and the customer hasn't done so.
• This could be done simply via advice to court judges, preferably advice that is publicly findable and quotable from the government website.
• All non-rent payments made to a management company / freeholder / agent thereof by a tenant are a service charge.
  • This would make a parking charge in your own space something that you can challenge at FTT where it will get heard by experts on property rights.
  • It would also stop managing agents circumventing rules around what they can add to a service charge by dressing it up as an "administration charge" or a "parking charge".
• FFT can hear cases where the leaseholder alleges that the freeholder/managing company are in breach of the lease agreement.
  • FFT currently can create a declaration that a leasehold agreement is being breached in cases where the leaseholder is alleged to be in breach. This declaration isn't binding, but a wake-up call to get back in line or a springboard to allow further proceedings.
  • I'd like to be able to apply for a declaration that the freeholder is in breach, which would make following up in the county courts or otherwise getting rid of PPCs from residential car parks far easier. ("The FTT has found that allowing parking charges against me is in breach of the leasehold. Get rid of the PPC or this ruling will be 'Exhibit A' in any legal proceedings.")
• A regulator for managing agents, and hopefully one which forces them to take responsibility for adhering to the leasehold agreements. At the moment they can introduce PPCs, take whatever bribe commission they get from charges and then say they were acting under instructions and leave the freeholder liable for any compensation which may have to be paid out. If they become liable for doing things which breach leasehold agreements they might be more careful to keep to them.
• I would note that a similar concept already applies to other professions: a lawyer can get in trouble for breaking their obligations to the court, even if specifically instructed to do so by their client; doctors must generally do what they consider best for their patients even if instructed otherwise by the patient's family.)
• Strict liability for PPCs to make sure that their landowner agreement is with the landowner or someone authorised to act on their behalf. I know similar requirements exist in other professions. Conveyancing lawyers are required to check the providence of funds used to buy a house, for example.

Zbubuman

Throwing my lot into the mix. My opinion would be that on occasions where the defendant doesn't acknowledge proceedings or turn up to the hearing. The case should be dismissed or adjourned, unless the claimant can demonstrate that they did everything possible to trace current address for service and served papers on that address. 

h2g2

Zbubuman said:

Throwing my lot into the mix. My opinion would be that on occasions where the defendant doesn't acknowledge proceedings or turn up to the hearing. The case should be dismissed or adjourned, unless the claimant can demonstrate that they did everything possible to trace current address for service and served papers on that address. 

Likewise, there's someone here who got the day of the hearing wrong and turned up a day late having defaulted.

I get it would cause some issues, but particularly for a litigant-in-person it would be just and proper to allow someone who didn't show up to pay a reasonable fee - not significantly more than a hearing fee at most - in order to allow a no-show to appeal a default judgement if they didn't show up and apply for it within a week (two/four weeks?) of the judgement handed down in their absence.

"Baby brain" or something like that, while annoying for the courts and parties to bend for, is not a good enough reason to hand down a judgement in absence, IMO.

Emmia

Protest said:

Massive conflict of interest between "local government" interests and "motorist" interests. Prior to Sunak taking an interest as Minister I think DLUHC prefered to ignore private parking as beneath them, best left to Transport or anyone else who wanted it. And they reverted to their own normal very quickly post-Sunak.

DLUHC Permanent Sec needs to see this issue as her Horizon/Vennells moment, where she is allowing motorists to be penalised daily by a system that she and her organisation has failed to regulate. And Parliament needs to ask "Why?"

 

This isn't a Horizon/Vennells moment. People aren't going to jail for fraud, losing their livelihoods etc. as a result of a system that their employer was probably aware was broken. People who get fined have usually parked where they shouldn't, or have overstayed their "welcome".

Private parking companies being contracted in, is no different to building management services in offices, security companies being used by pubs and clubs on a Friday night or individuals hiring in a cleaner.

The truth is we need far fewer cars on the road, the level of car traffic is blighting our country.

Zbubuman

Emmia said:

Protest said:

Massive conflict of interest between "local government" interests and "motorist" interests. Prior to Sunak taking an interest as Minister I think DLUHC prefered to ignore private parking as beneath them, best left to Transport or anyone else who wanted it. And they reverted to their own normal very quickly post-Sunak.

DLUHC Permanent Sec needs to see this issue as her Horizon/Vennells moment, where she is allowing motorists to be penalised daily by a system that she and her organisation has failed to regulate. And Parliament needs to ask "Why?"

 

This isn't a Horizon/Vennells moment. People aren't going to jail for fraud, losing their livelihoods etc. as a result of a system that their employer was probably aware was broken. People who get fined have usually parked where they shouldn't, or have overstayed their "welcome".

Private parking companies being contracted in, is no different to building management services in offices, security companies being used by pubs and clubs on a Friday night or individuals hiring in a cleaner.

The truth is we need far fewer cars on the road, the level of car traffic is blighting our country.

The PROBLEM isn't in the fact some private car parks do require management of some sort ( congestion, people abusing the car park, etc); where management companies would be seen as a necessary evil. It is the way most management companies manage the car parks. Their ultimate aim is to make massive profits, they don't really care about fair management and usually they will keep changing the rules to entrap as many unwary motorists as possible. 

For example take the stupid rule of leaving the designated boundary. when does the rule become applicable ? 

Parking is designated for supermarket customers only and has a 2.5 hr maximum stay. You have a family of 2 adults and a child with the below scenarios:

• Driver parks and goes to supermarket and does shopping for 1 hr, whilst partner and child take a walk down the adjacent high street!
• Whole family does 1 hr shopping at supermarket and then take a 1hr stroll in the adjacent high street.
• Whole family goes to high street first 1hr and then return to supermarket and do 1hr shopping.
• Driver walks across the road to throw away an empty packet of crisps in the nearest rubbish bin. 

All of the above scenarios are cases where parking companies have issued PCN for allegedly breaking the T&C of parking. 

Taking you logic of a nightclub employing a bouncer. Imagine if the bouncer got £5 commission for each person he refused entry. Within minutes he will be making every excuse under the sun to not let people in ( too tall, to short, too fat, too skinny, etc).