Protection of Freedom bill -http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate...bailiff#g138.2

[MARTIN3030]

Watching this live from HOC on BBC.

 

Labour Shadow home sec is seeking to have clauses looked at in the proposed amendments.

Her calls include;

That all parking enforcement companies and individuals be registered with the BPA.

 

That an indipendent appeals process for parking ticketing be brought in.

 

That fees for parking on private land be in line with those of non private roads/land.

 

PLUS more................

 

There is disagreements about the use of barriers.

 

Wheel clamping to be made unlawful

 

Proposals to make it a criminal offence to engage in parking enforcement unless properly affiliated to the BPA.

 

The debate is still ongoing with voting expected Tuesday night from 22.00 hrs.

[crem]

Wheel clamping to be made unlawful

.

 

At least that bit remains good news

[Zamzara]

BPA or similar is just about limiting competition, not quality control.

[MARTIN3030]

If the proposals are all implemented then it will impact on all.

 

Appeals will be dealt with independently.

 

Charges for parking on private land will be in the same range as those for non private roads including the rights to early settlement discount.

 

Diana Johnson spoke about how rogue clamping firms were already selling parking kits on the internet and were taking photos from sites Vehicle plates then obtaining driver info from the DVLA.

 

There was a lot of debate about the ease of which driver details can be obtained from the DVLA.

 

It was said there were 1002 parking enforcement firms/ individuals who were not affiliated to any codes of practice.

 

As well as submissions from the BPA,there were others from the AA CAB and many MPs who told of stories from their constituents about their parking experiences on retail parks and fast food outlets.

In one case a driver was given parking tickets for 41 days parking after returning a second time in the same day to a Fast food outlet.

 

There is still some way to go and there will be further opportunity to add more before the bill finishes all its final stage.

[Al27]

Nobody here seems to grasp the difference between parking charges and contractual penalty clauses.

 

No issue with it all being done properly, but looking at the wording of the bill, the status quo will remain. The bill just makes keepers 'liable' for an unenforceable contractual penalty, unrelated to loss incurred.

[green_and_mean]

The debate discussed the issues surrounding appealling the fines (their word not mine) but unless the law is changed to allow penalty charging the bill is still nonsense. If you are going to ban clamping there has to be a consequence other than just paying the original charge. If the Courts carry on refusing to allow a charge because its a penalty why would anyone bother paying for parking? It would be like banning penalty fares on a train and telling train companies they can only charge the traveller for the journey taken. Why would anyone buy a train ticket they would take a chance and just pay the fare if and when asked for a ticket. The same would apply to parking its ridiculous to state you can park without paying and the worst that could happen is a letter in the post asking you to pay the £5. If I walked out of Tesco without paying I'd expect some consequence for my actions not just a letter asking me to pay for the bottle of wine stuck up my jumper.

[Al27]

Yes, I agree.

 

But then again, most PPC charges are not related to lack of payment. Most are the equivalent of Tesco attempting to fine you if you bought the wine legitimately but couldn't find your receipt in your pocket afterwards.

[sameagle]

Our politicians discussing "Rogues" - and why not?

 

They are best qualified, after all !

 

Sam

[honeybee13]

Our politicians discussing "Rogues" - and why not?

 

They are best qualified, after all !

 

Sam

 

Quite so. Must go and fill in my expenses claim .

 

My best, HB

[TheBogsDollocks]

I'm not convinced the BPA would offer an entirely independent appeal service. They represent and look after the interests of their members not the public.

[MARTIN3030]

My understanding was that the calls being made are for an appeals process totally indip of the BPA.

[Nev Met]

Spot on

[brassnecked]

Independent appeal? The BPA will never allow that.

[Nev Met]

Independent appeal? The BPA will never allow that.

 

Well the BPA have (AIUI) been tasked with delivering an Independent Appeals Service which is no different asking a fox to build you a chicken run.

 

Talk about set up to fail from the outset, the only thing Independent will be the use of the word in the name.

[green_and_mean]

Unless you expect the tax paying public to provide the commercial parking industry wih an appeals system its never going to be independant as it will be funded by the industry, I think the term you are looking for is impartial which is not really the same thing.

[Al27]

Under what lawful guidance would an appeals system have in order to make any kind of judgement whatsoever?

 

There is no Traffic Management Act. There is no Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. There is no Off Street Parking Order system.

 

They'd be making decisions based on pretty photographs and nothing else.

 

If you ignore a council adjudicators decision the council will send round bailiffs.

If you ignore a private parking company 'adjudication' they'd be able to do sod all apart from make a county court claim.

[green_and_mean]

Under what lawful guidance would an appeals system have in order to make any kind of judgement whatsoever?

 

There is no Traffic Management Act. There is no Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. There is no Off Street Parking Order system.

 

They'd be making decisions based on pretty photographs and nothing else.

 

If you ignore a council adjudicators decision the council will send round bailiffs.

If you ignore a private parking company 'adjudication' they'd be able to do sod all apart from make a county court claim.

 

That is a point I have raised before this is far bigger than a few paragraphs in a bill it needs at least a set of regulations on its own, the whole thing is ridiculous. The simple solution would have been to have clamped down on licencing of clampers (excuse the pun) and set a regulated scale of fees. I'm sure businesses such as pubs thats need a licence are enforced with some degree of vigilance why was the SIA so toothless?

[Al27]

Absolutely.

 

As for the SIA, self regulation is no regulation. I agree with the notion of proper regulation and maximum clamping fees. But then you still have the problem of having to pay and having little chance of a refund, even if they clearly breached the regs.

[green_and_mean]

Absolutely.

 

As for the SIA, self regulation is no regulation. I agree with the notion of proper regulation and maximum clamping fees. But then you still have the problem of having to pay and having little chance of a refund, even if they clearly breached the regs.

 

If the max was £100 there would be far less people doing it for a start. You could require that the licence has a proper business address not a PO box, have to deposit a bond to cover unpaid CCJs, make it a proper criminal offence to clamp without a licence or adhering to it, have an industry standard for signs set by BPA which licenced clampers should adhere to ie min size, layout etc there are simple solutions but since the govt clearly don't understand the problems or solutions and just want to win votes with good press coverage they don't really care.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

The law requires providers of goods and services to provide spaces for disabled people (this is usually taken to mean for blue badge holders, to match the public provision). The law also requires them to make sure that the spaces are available for blue badge holders.

 

There is no loss to the private parking company if the blue badge spaces are taken by those who don't need them - however, a disabled person who is unable to access goods and services as a result could take court action.

 

One local company actually employs a person, full time, in a free car park, to tell drivers who don't need the spaces to go away. Of course many don't, and tell him to go away (usual excuses...its raining, I won't be long, I know my rights, ***** off, most people with blue badges aren't disabled anyway, my car will get scratched in a normal space, I am loading, my grandma is in the shop and has forgotten to give me her blue badge, etc). He does issue "invoices", but many people know that they don't need to pay.

 

Even on here I have seen the post "disabled spaces don't exist in private car parks"... (shame that disability still exists!).

 

From my point of view, the current situation is crazy. As a wheelchair user, I need a wider space, whether the car park is operated privately or not, and when they are all taken I have to sit and wait, or go home. I have to do my shopping at unpopular times, or wait... I cannot go to the retail parks in December as I know I cannot find a space, and sitting and waiting will get me sworn at, and if I go to the town centre I am limited to road side parking (which is actually not wider, and I risk getting clipped by passing cars, and often have to go down the road to find a dropped kerb).

 

I don't know what the answer is - but from my point of view the current system is not working, and I wish that the private parking companies could issue enforceable invoices for blue badge spaces!

[Al27]

And what happens when a disabled badge holder just forgets to display the badge, or it slips off the dashboard?

[my-spirit-soars-free]

And what happens when a disabled badge holder just forgets to display the badge, or it slips off the dashboard?

 

The same thing that happens when it happens on the council enforced areas - you get to pay the fine.

 

Having said that, most people have holders for the blue badge, as it has to last for 3 years, and the weight of the holder means it is very unlikely to slip off. Forgetting to display? I am not allowed to forget on a yellow line, or in a council space, so why would a private car park need to be different?

[Al27]

Personally I don't agree that councils should automatically uphold any fines regarding to non-display, but luckily they do sometimes use their discretion.

 

When it comes to a supermarket using a private agent to harass a customer, it's a whole different ball game. Your relationship with your local authority is not the same as that with a private company.

 

Would you eat at a restaurant if you were given 1 hour to eat your meal and the government had granted them the power to fine people who forgot to shine their shoes? Would it be ok because you were 'not allowed to forget' to have shiny shoes at work?

[my-spirit-soars-free]

To put this in context - I am allowed only 3 hours by the local authority,much less in some places, and I will be ticketted if I overstay, blue badge or not.

 

If I leave my car on a yellow line, and forget to display the blue badge, it may well be towed (a much worse thing to happen to me than a mere fine, as I am stranded without my car).

 

The reason why many authorities are clamping down on "forgot to display" is that many people can "borrow" a badge long enough to scan it, and can then easily claim they were giving a lift. In this area they also ticket for displaying incorrectly - and when I had a go at a traffic warden for doing just that he pointed out that most people who have a blue badge know how to display it, and that, in his experience, many of the "ooopsy, I put it upside down" were either expired, or "borrowed" (yes, I did apologise, it made sense to me).

 

 

I can also vouch for the fact that the company that runs the private car park in the local retail park does not ticket adapted vehicles, or tax exempt vehicles, even if there is no blue badge (because that is what their contract with the landowner requires) - whereas the local authority wardens will.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the parking companies are implementing the rules that the landowner makes - and if the landowner wishes to restrict free parking to an hour, that is their right.

[greasmonkey]

it would be a good idea to let the mp commitee know how many ccjs

these pcs dont pay it shows they wont pay the money back even if

there is an independent appeal in force