IPC discussion topics - a place to share and air your views

Thorndorise

IPC created database of 'suspicious addresses' - data protection anyone?

Saw this on LinkedIn earlier - Will clearly and publicly stating that they are collecting a database of 'suspicious' addresses (not sure how they are determining this, post is vague).

The aim being for their members to sense check potential use of fraud in avoiding the consequences of their actions...(what's that noise? - oh it's the ICO calling - unlikely but it'd be nice to seem some proactivity)!

Thorndorise

Link to the BBC article quoted above https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0d4z2nnqpo

Note these are mainly Penalty Charge Notices and not Parking CN's, so Council authority driven road offences and not parking ones, sooo, bit of a disingenuous post...

Thorndorise

Had to capture this one too...it seems Mr Hurley might have to 'revisit' the initial approach taken by the single Code allowing only 5 mins to review T&Cs and purchase a ticket. (After 'adopting' the previous Gov's work)

link to BBC article here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k0qlpjgk2o

Call for calm against rash decisions (i.e. ANPR not fit for purpose of issuing tickets)!!

Car1980

Will seems to support obtaining data from the DVLA for any reason whatsoever, even 5 minute payment scams.

Yet complains that a tiny minority of the addresses he buys are dead ends.

Count your blessings William and don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Thorndorise

I made sure that the IPC were aware they had 57% of their (supremely well-thought of and trusted) Accredited Operator Status members that could not be bothered to implement a key element of their v9 Code of Practice, basically all 47 of their ~83 AOS members had not got a published complaints policy on their website.

I know that this may be 'helping them out' - but it isn't really, as each of those companies has a duty to follow the rules - otherwise why do they try and enforce theirs.

Anyway, the Cut and paste (which I discovered you can do on their complaints portal - much to their dismay) complaint I made highlighted this issue for each of them. They got bored 'concluding' my complaints by about 20 in, and just concluded all of them and stated they didn't need to respond to each complaint individually as they were 'aware' of this issue and were acting upon it.

My complaints were made around the end of Nov, and this would be approx. 11 months after each of those companies should have had those policies published on their website (and certainly since this is also a caveat in the joint code too).

Suffice to say, it seems like the rocket did a little good with 34 actually fulfilling the requirement as of today - however there are still 12 frankly shocking companies that haven't bothered yet....

Watch this space, I'll keep pressing...

Coupon-mad

Nicely done. Keep the IPC busy and keep up the pressure.

Nellymoser

@Thorndorise good on you for persisting with your complaints.

Thorndorise

What the actual F is this!!!!

Are the IPC having a laugh, this speaks to what a misleading bunch of morons the IPC are....
The IPC have never mandated entrance signs, nor change of terms signs, this is misleading at best (and whilst the joint code covers it now, IPC members still l have until the end of '26 to implement the changes on signs).

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/international-parking-community-ipc_parking-parkinguk-privateparking-activity-7290400814899052544-z50w?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Le_Kirk

Good, an entrance sign in a bush and a terms sign that could be obscured by being between two parked cars!

patient_dream

My opinion does not change ...

THE IPC IS NOT FIT FOR PIRPOSE

h2g2

> THE IPC IS NOT FIT FOR PIRPOSE

They are, but their purpose is to support their members extracting as much money from motorists as possible. And they do a fairly good job of it.