REVIVING THE PRIVATE PARKING BILL

kryten3000

RogerW_3 said:

Interestingly in his LinkedIn posts Burgess announced that he left Excel Parking Services around two years ago.

He definitely went back but doesn't appear to have updated LinkedIn.

RogerW_3

kryten3000 said:

RogerW_3 said:

Interestingly in his LinkedIn posts Burgess announced that he left Excel Parking Services around two years ago.

He definitely went back but doesn't appear to have updated LinkedIn.

Not to worry,  He has brazenly lied in his witness statement and submitted a plan showing a pay and display machine location but that machine does not exist. Excel removed it 6 years ago. Pretty obvious he hasn't even visited the car park himself. Failed to present any photo evidence of the machine too. Failed to present a copy of alleged issued PCN. Presented vehicle photos with no time and date stamp. Alleged issue date of PCN is falsified. The list goes on. He is well and truly rubber ducked. Complete amateur.

Ralph-y

"I am presently overseas on holiday and at the same time having to deal with a pile of untruthful Excel wombats doo. Line breaks are the least of my concerns. Be grateful that I even found the time to write what I wrote. " 

OK thanks .... I did do it for you but no thanks .... good luck ....

RogerW_3

kryten3000 said:

RogerW_3 said:

Interestingly in his LinkedIn posts Burgess announced that he left Excel Parking Services around two years ago.

He definitely went back but doesn't appear to have updated LinkedIn.

Unless he went back more than 14/15 months he may still have a problem  e ayse he would not face been an Excel employer when an alleged parking event occured.

There is another post in which he avoids answering the question. So, similarly, worth challenging his witness statement.

Protest

RogerW_3 said:

  Very interesting reading, the posts about the DMCC Act. ...........

1) needs a legal eagle to answer this.

2) but if " Excel fully comply with (an undeclared version of) the IPC Code of Practice" it must be the version in force at the time of that statement.

3) and if you know Excel are actually, at that same time, non-compliant then consequences are in prospect in the perjury arena? 

Kaizen2024

The applicable CoP is the one that was in place on the date of the parking event.

kryten3000

Kaizen2024 said:

The applicable CoP is the one that was in place on the date of the parking event.

The issue is that Excel won't specify which version of the code they are relying on, but I would imagine they would try and use whichever one favours their point of view.  

Coupon-mad

kryten3000 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

The applicable CoP is the one that was in place on the date of the parking event.

The issue is that Excel won't specify which version of the code they are relying on, but I would imagine they would try and use whichever one favours their point of view.  

And the second issue, of course,  is that the IPC CoP (and the Joint CoP) were written in the interests of AOS members and with no evidence of any regard for consumer ethics.

In other words it is considered by right-thinking people, to be a pile of steaming crap.

  

Protest

https://is.gd/Gk94uT ........ So the new Minister has picked up the essential MHCLG hymnbook - 'Tell Them The Old Old Story' ending with the traditional Faith-based amen ..... "in due course."

    Meanwhile BPA continues to insinuate itself in the wallet of governance, leading the new national online payments system implementation. That provides them an open door for necessary contact which will contaminate local government actors - elected and employed - with the industry version of ethics and ways of maximising income. The Epstein Code?

    "The UK government has a clear duty to prevent unethical trading practices through law, guidance, and enforcement mechanisms that aim to protect consumers and ensure ethical standards across supply chains and commerce." ....says AI, so it must be true! Thus, even without the 2019 Act, there was a duty that was obviously not being exercised (see Hansard for the record of debates) and which is still being set aside while Ministers are busy trying to dodge their own personal fiscal responsibilities.

    Government might argue that the current situation is the fault of the judiciary who chose to change Common Law principles and allow punitive damages to be applied to civil contracts. This was an effort to discourage fare dodging and similar behaviours that exploit badly-supervised small-value contracts. It has also encouraged devious entrapment action by some operators. While we wait for "in due course" to catch up with "immediately" (don't hold your breath!), is there anything constructive that might be done to raise the awareness of the judiciary about the things happening in the foggy jungle between the gate of the carpark and the courtroom? Which is where the harms are perpetrated. Perhaps a well-informed Times editorial or two, for example, to supplement the red-tops articles?

Protest

"the provision of regulation adapts to the industry's needs, that is, both the legislator and regulator are controlled and captured by the industry. The basic view of the theory is that the regulator gets captured no matter how the regulatory scheme is designed. The implication is that regulation increases the industry's profits rather than the social welfare."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

The wiki has many examples of this outcome, but has nothing remedial to offer. 

In the context of private parking regulation Govt, which generally appears to view motorists as a source of easy revenue, already seems to have been captured by the industry.