PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

A new Code of Practice - Sir Greg Knight MP - private members bill, Threads merged x3
The Cab Driver
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 17:37
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 5 Jul 2012
Member No.: 55,854



Sir Greg Knight MP has put forward a private members bill to introduce a new code of practice. I wonder if it will ever see the light of day and if it will have any effect. Here's a link for more details:
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-1...ofpractice.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 17:37
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
roop298
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 21:47
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 22 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,706



Greg Knights Parking Code of Practice Bill. What's in it?

I don't see any details firstly, and is the bill intended to get prepheral organisations into line? Like popla, for instance. Or tightening up the bpa's loose bundle of toilet paper?
Also, anyone had any response from Greg's office (those who've contacted it, obviously)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 22:04
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,549
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



There is considerable discourse on Hansard.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-...OfPractice)Bill

One of the highlights seems to be pressure from the BPA to get rid of IAS.

The plan seems to be the usual DVLA lead enforcement, which has seemed wholly ineffectual to date. Also repeating what is surely a lie about it costing the DVLA £2.84 for each plate lookup. Bearing in mind these are accessed electronically I can't see how that can be real, unless the DVLA hold their records on microfiche.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 22:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 07:35
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,752
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



Watch the House of Commons debate here. Make yourself a large pot of tea, then settle down. Very interesting comments from MPs - a 100% anti-PPC (long) session:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f038...918?in=12:49:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roop298
post Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 12:02
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 22 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,706



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 07:35) *
Watch the House of Commons debate here. Make yourself a large pot of tea, then settle down. Very interesting comments from MPs - a 100% anti-PPC (long) session:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f038...918?in=12:49:41


Nice to see they can inject some humour into what must seem tedious proceedings.
I spoke with Greg Knights office this morning. There is no clarity on when the Committee will review the bill but his secretary said they are still collating information and suggestions to be included in the final document.
I'll be submitting my two penn'orth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 08:27
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,189
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



First suggestion from me would be bringing PPC's into line with Council car parks by acknowledging that ANPR is too error prone to be used for monitoring car parks in the way it is and banning its use (PE will love that!), this is a logical step as it brings private car parking enforcement into line with that under the TMA 2004 (and as equality of penalties was alluded to in Beavis, then equality of enforcement should also be in line.
Second suggestion would be a truly independent single ADR working to a single set of rules.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 10 Mar 2018 - 13:27
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,549
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 08:27) *
First suggestion from me would be bringing PPC's into line with Council car parks by acknowledging that ANPR is too error prone to be used for monitoring car parks in the way it is and banning its use (PE will love that!), this is a logical step as it brings private car parking enforcement into line with that under the TMA 2004 (and as equality of penalties was alluded to in Beavis, then equality of enforcement should also be in line.
Second suggestion would be a truly independent single ADR working to a single set of rules.

The issue is that it is actually the more reputable parking companies who use ANPR. There are lots of complaints about Parking Eye but realistically it is a very small percentage of actual plate captures.

It tends to be those that manually ticket that do the wheel over the line/not in permitted space/etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roop298
post Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 22:42
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 22 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,706



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 08:27) *
First suggestion from me would be bringing PPC's into line with Council car parks by acknowledging that ANPR is too error prone to be used for monitoring car parks in the way it is and banning its use (PE will love that!), this is a logical step as it brings private car parking enforcement into line with that under the TMA 2004 (and as equality of penalties was alluded to in Beavis, then equality of enforcement should also be in line.
Second suggestion would be a truly independent single ADR working to a single set of rules.


Who formulates the CoP for Council car parks??? And why are the bpa not following that. Or did they start with it then shat all over it?

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 08:27) *
First suggestion from me would be bringing PPC's into line with Council car parks by acknowledging that ANPR is too error prone to be used for monitoring car parks in the way it is and banning its use (PE will love that!), this is a logical step as it brings private car parking enforcement into line with that under the TMA 2004 (and as equality of penalties was alluded to in Beavis, then equality of enforcement should also be in line.
Second suggestion would be a truly independent single ADR working to a single set of rules.

PS: have you fired this at Greg Knights orifice?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 24 Nov 2018 - 09:52
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,317
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



This has now passed its third reading and is heading for the House of Lords
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/arti...ctice-Bill.html

Intended to become Law in April next year

Can somebody explain how it will make any significant difference for motorists plagued by the likes of ParkingEye that don't usually exceed the proposed upper charge limits ?

My suspicion is that the Law of Unintended Consequences will ensure that the problem will become worse when an official appeals body is in place
Courts will be reluctant to challenge its decisions or sympathise with motorists that didn't appeal

The Government will effectively be introducing binding ADR by the back door

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 06:25
Post #10


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 2,011
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 24 Nov 2018 - 09:52) *
… My suspicion is that the Law of Unintended Consequences will ensure that the problem will become worse when an official appeals body is in place
Courts will be reluctant to challenge its decisions or sympathise with motorists that didn't appeal

The Government will effectively be introducing binding ADR by the back door


That is quite possible, but won't necessarily be a bad thing, as it will reduce the burden on the courts, currently inundated with a plethora of PPC claims, and will also mean motorists won't have to endure months of stress waiting for their case to be listed.

But the Law of Unintended Consequences cuts both ways.

The BPA are welcoming the changes publicly, while overlooking the fact that all this came about in the first place because self-regulation clearly isn't working, and there are many of their members guilty of predatory and aggressive practices.

So with no CoP to administer, and a likely loss of income when some of their members are put out of business, their power and influence will diminish considerably.


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 11:02
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,317
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



That is quite possible, but won't necessarily be a bad thing, as it will reduce the burden on the courts, currently inundated with a plethora of PPC claims

If the BPA hadn't told such porkies about the number of court claims, we wouldn't have the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4, resulting in the current plethora

This post has been edited by Redivi: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 11:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bailiff Advice
post Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 18:26
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 209
Joined: 4 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,440



Sir Greg Knight's Parking (Code of Practice) Bill received its third reading in the House of Commons on Friday 23rd November.
Anyone with an interest in 'private' parking' tickets really should see if they can access a copy of the debate on 'catch up'. It was a fascinating and WELL DONE to Sir Greg Knight for all the work that he has put into the Bill.

The Bill now makes it's passage to the House of Lords. A Hansard copy can be read here:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-...CC-E4FBF64B45C4

The following comments from the debate are of interest:

New clause 1 will appoint a single appeals service to create further clarity for consumers, giving a well-signposted route to appeal a private parking ticket. I am delighted on behalf of the Government to support the new clause. It and the associated amendments will ensure that there is a fair, transparent and consistent appeals service for motorists. This has been warmly welcomed by consumer groups and the parking industry alike.


QUOTE
Sir Greg Knight:

It is important to remember that these companies have no legal power to fine motorists. That is something only the police, local councils and those enforcing railway byelaws can do. As a result, some private parking companies deliberately make their parking charges look very similar to official penalty charge notices. When the police or the local authority issue a fine, it will often be labelled as a “PCN”—a penalty charge notice—and may come in an official yellow cellophane wrapper. Some private companies are now using similar packaging and are even labelling their notices with the word, “PCN”, but this time it stands for parking charge notice. Often the term enforcement is used, but these companies do not have any enforcement power.

When his Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, it will take away the right of a rogue company to seek vehicle keeper details, thereby putting it out of business.

In reality, these private parking notices are not fines, but invoices. It is the law of contract that governs the relationship between the parking company and the customer, as has previously been said. In other words, they are a demand for payment, because the car parking company says that a driver has breached their terms and conditions. They are private parking notices, and the code should require them to be described as such in future, and I am sure that the Minister will do that and that those companies will not be able to use threatening language or imitate or copy a ticket received from the police.

My Bill is designed to bring these bad practices and bad behaviour to an end. It requires the Government to create a mandatory code of practice across the parking sector to end inconsistent practices and unfair treatment of motorists. It will ensure that the terms on which private parking is provided, including the rights and obligations of each party, are fair, clear and unambiguous. The mandatory code will assure drivers that private car park operators will in future treat them in a reasonable and proportionate manner. If they do not, motorists will have access to a robust and independent appeal service.

As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), erring car park operators will be put out of business by being denied access to the DVLA database. May I repeat again that I am most grateful to have the support not only of the Government, but of the Official Opposition and the Scottish National party? I say to the House that, today, we can take a big step towards making private parking a fairer and more predictable experience for us all. I commend my Bill to the House.


This post has been edited by Bailiff Advice: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 18:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Earl Purple
post Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 12:32
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 719
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Member No.: 39,245



I just read it. It appears to address a few points:

- Instructions on entering the car park must be clear
- An appeals process that is clear and fair
- They must not make the charge notices look like PCNs or send threatening letters.
- The charges cannot exceed what a PCN charge is in the area.
- Only licenced companies would get access to DVLA records
- Cannot use ANPR as a means of checking entry and exit.

I would like a few more things but it's a good start.

These are other things I would like to see:

- Clear rules for motorcycles and blue-badge holders
- A scheme whereby there is a reasonable charge for an overstay that can be purchased, e.g. up to 3 hours free then you pay £5 for overstay by up to 1 hour, which is a clear "charge"

Those are for car parks where members of the public may park, and not private land that is restricted to business permit holders (workers). Residential parking should be covered by lease only and not enforced by private parking companies, and barriers should be used if necessary. Ideally business car parks should also be controlled by barriers, in my opinion. If they want to allow some visitor parking, the visitor should have to still pass through a barrier that can be opened by the premises they are visiting.

There are schemes whereby a car park has a charge but shoppers from a specific shop may get to park for free if they spend a notional amount in the shop. Sometimes this is offered as a refund itself, e.g. in an M&S car park in Golders Green I think you pay £2 to park, take your token into the shop and get £2 off the bill if you spend £10. There is a maximum stay but no prohibition of using other local shops as well as long as you do so within the time limit. Of course that scheme can backfire if you walk into the supermarket to find empty shelves. I guess there should be a procedure in place to handle that.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 13th December 2018 - 02:52
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.