Yesterday in the House of Commons, Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill entitled: Parking (Code of Practice) Bill received its 2nd reading.

The support that he received was overwhelming (and thoroughly deserved) and the Bill now passes to the Committee stage.

Rougue private parking operators have cause for concern.

Yesterdays debate is worthy of reading:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debat...ailiff#g1160.0

The following is taken from Sir Greg Knight's website and outlines his reasons for introducing his Private Members Bill:

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/02/greg-knight-my-private-members-bill-will-call-time-on-rogue-parking-operators.html

 

Tomorrow, MPs will have the opportunity to tackle an issue that features heavily in all of our email inboxes and postbags. My Private Member’s Bill, the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, will hopefully be given a Second Reading on the floor of the House of Commons.

 

My intention is to give Government powers to create a new mandatory code of practice across the parking sector, and thus to end inconsistent practices and unfair treatment of British motorists by a few rogue private parking operators.

 

My own constituents in East Yorkshire, and motorists right across the country, are fed up and calling for change. They are joined by some parking operators who subscribe to existing codes of practice and who want to see their high standards upheld across the whole sector.

 

Most parking operators have nothing to fear from my Bill, but we must stop unscrupulous operators undermining the whole sector with bad practice. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment, and an opaque appeals process have no place in 21st-century Britain.

 

The Bill will oblige the Government to introduce a new statutory code of practice to spell out what behaviours can be reasonably expected from private car parking operators. This will ensure that the terms under which private parking is provided, including the rights and obligations of each party, are fair, clear and unambiguous.

 

My Bill does nothing to diminish the rights of landowners to earn a fair income from their land, including seeking redress when motorists don’t play by the rules. But the scales need to be rebalanced so the system is fair for all involved. My Bill, if approved by Parliament, will help stamp out rogues in the industry.

 

Dubious methods, confined to a small number of operators, have done much to undermine consumer confidence in private parking operators. We cannot allow bad practice like this to continue. Making these changes will reassure drivers that private car park operators will, in future, treat them in a fair and proportionate manner.

 

My Bill will also benefit the parking sector. The majority of car park providers are honest and fair, and are keen to prevent unscrupulous competitors undermining the sector in the eyes of motorists. A mandatory code of practice will create a level playing field, requiring all providers to operate fairly and with transparency. It will also help to build trust between motorists and providers, who between them support the 82,000 people who work in the parking sector.

 

A large number of stakeholders have stepped up to show their support for the Bill. I have been working with motoring groups such as RAC and the British Parking Association to help improve motorists’ experiences.

 

I need the support of my fellow MPs tomorrow if I am to succeed. Over 19 million journeys every day end at a parking space. This is an issue which cuts across all voters regardless of geographic region, class or age. If you have a car, you will be affected by this.

 

MPs who support this Bill on Friday will be supporting the British motorist, because Parliament now has the chance to make parking fairer for both consumers and businesses. This is an opportunity that should be grasped.

uses the word fine

so doesn't understand what they are going on about...

Hope this does work, but as per DX they must get away from the use of the word FINE, as if the legislation includes the word, there could be profound unintended consequences of potentially legalising PPC invoices as Private Fines.

Further reading on the same subject:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?484630-DVLA-access-by-parking-co-s

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?484534-Rogue-parking-companies-face-government-crackdown(1-Viewing)-nbsp

Pete Wishart MP (SNP) seems to know what he's talking about though. And he has the ear of Greg Knight.

We have heard some of the things that should be included; I will make a couple of pitches, and I hope to serve on the Bill Committee to pursue them. When people receive PCNs, their rights should be included on them. Too often the parking cowboys dress them up as fines; they are not fines. They are not even effectively legally enforceable; what they are is a statement to say that the recipient has somehow breached the terms and conditions of using that private land, and if the parking ​company were to pursue them, it would have to go to the civil court and prove that they broke those terms and conditions.

 

I make a plea, too, on the use of debt collection agencies, which has to end. They are grossly invasive, threatening and meant to intimidate people into paying. I have seen some appalling examples of the use of debt collection agencies and how they increase the intensity of their threats and intimidation. I have had constituents who have had 10 threatening letters, which increase to the point where I almost think they are going to be taken out and shot at dawn, such is the level of their threats.

 

The National Motorists Action Group has also found an unsavoury profitable collusion between private parking companies and debt collection agencies. It is right that PPCs should expect settlement and that they write letters, but local authorities do not use private collection agencies, so if it is good enough for the statutory sector it should be good enough for the private sector, too.

Covers it quite nicely I reckon.

Reading the debate, "Smart" Parking get quite a kicking from some of the MP's that spoke.

Kevin Foster MP (con).

In my constituency, I have two parking companies: Premier Parking Solutions of Newton Abbot and Premier Park Ltd of Exeter. They are responsible for the management of one privately owned car park each, yet each of those car parks generates more complaints about enforcement practices than the entirety of Torbay Council’s enforcement operations, which include 39 car parks and all on-street car parking. Various interesting practices and excuses are used for things such as why a barrier cannot be put in place so that people know, before they leave, that they have not paid, and can avoid getting one of these fake fines in the post. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, they are made to look like fines, but they are not—they are invoices.

 

When I secured my debate last year, one of the companies pleaded with me not to name them as part of a cowboy industry, saying, “We haven’t had any complaints over the past month or two,” and I said, “Yeah, that’s because you had a massive fire in your car park and it’s ​been closed for the past couple of months, so you haven’t been trapping people.” Companies in this industry are like bloodsuckers in many cases. The reality is that the current system of regulation is absolutely hopeless. It is like putting Dracula in charge down at the blood bank.

BOOM! Have that

James Heappey MP (con)

The fact that private parking companies use the PCN abbreviation as “parking charge notice”—compared with the “penalty charge notice” issued by the police and civil authorities—is wilfully misleading and should be stopped. We should also look at the way in which private parking companies are allowed to design the waterproof wrappers for tickets, the tickets themselves and the language on them. There is a clear attempt to make these tickets look like they have come from the civil authorities or from the police.

 

In my experience and the experience of many of my constituents, signage in private car parks is inconsistent. At best, that could be down to poor maintenance or a mistake. At worst, it could be argued that the poor signage is again a deliberate act to confuse or deceive.

Stephen Doughty (Lab)

I am glad to hear that the Minister supports the Bill. Will he also look closely at the links between one of the so-called trade associations, the International Parking Community, and Gladstones Solicitors, and the listing of all these accredited operators? It is clear from Companies House information that there are clear links between the individual directors of Gladstones and the IPC, which goes under United Trade and Industry Ltd, and that there has been a repeated changing of names and addresses in an attempt to cover up these links.

John & Will won't be happy

If this makes it in to law, I give the IPC (and most of their members) a month, tops!

Rishi Sunak (con)

To respond to the comments from my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood), an operator that fails to comply with the code will lose its access to DVLA data. That is a severe penalty, making it effectively impossible to enforce a ticket. Further, if a trade association has been found to be breaching the code of practice, its status as an official trade association will be revoked immediately.

Capita will want to get rid of PE even sooner then, If we offer Crapita a quid each for it DF and they took it we could wind it up.....

Capita will want to get rid of PE even sooner then, If we offer Crapita a quid each for it DF and they took it we could wind it up.....

Ahh, what dreams may come.

Now, please excuse me while I Look wistfully into the far distance

the changes proposed arent really changes but just clarification and enforcement of what is supposed to already happen.

Many commentators have suggested simple signage stating something like it costs £x to park here but the first 3 hours are free providing you park in a marked bay would cover everything

but as many of the companies dont make money until someone "breaches" a condition it has been in their interests to overcomplicate things or on occasion just tell blatant lies and commit fraud.

Clarification and changing of aspects of planning law would also be a method of clearing up some of the shadier practices as well,

if you own land that is used for public parking you should need to have this reflected in the planning consent and

also where someone else profits by managing that land then they should pay business rates on the land.

That would put an end to the ridiculous amounts charged for parking at hospitals for example and make parking management on residential developments work for the residents and not against them purely to the parking co/management co advantage.

That's too much like common sense EB, lawmakers and PPC's seem to be afflicted in the same way regarding simplicity.

What's the betting that lobbyists get involved. Keeping things as normal serves the big companies. Capita tend to have a few ministers ears as they do a lot of work for Government.

Making things as simple as possible is what consumers want and the Government should listen to them and not the lobbyists.

which is why forums like this exist. If the system wasnt broken it wouldnt need fixing yet no-one seems to twig that simple concept. Parliament has more than 50% of its membership who are lawyers in their day job. It is naked self interest that keeps them creating poorly worded legislation. you wait until they get their teeth into brexit good and proper. Repealing the 1972 EC act would have had this done and dusted as far as parliament is concerned but no, they introduced more legislation that risks being voted down because they all want to have their voices heard and show off how big they are in their small world

That's too much like common sense EB, lawmakers and PPC's seem to be afflicted in the same way regarding simplicity.

What's the betting that lobbyists get involved. Keeping things as normal serves the big companies. Capita tend to have a few ministers ears as they do a lot of work for Government.

The timing of the 2nd reading is particularly important in light of the current Consultation on addresses on judgments etc:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?483835-Consultation-on-Default-County-Court-Judgments-(and-where-claims-had-been-sent-to-an-old-address)

also,

having Crapita in financial trouble works to the public's advantage as well as they will have to offload Parking Eye for a good few quid and any prospect of a heap of claims they are looking like losing or a class action against them would push the price down.

If anyone is minded to write to their MP over this then really push home the inequality of hospital parking chrges and poor signage, unfair behavious etc ( plenty of evidence on here with various co's)

As PE makes most of its money from a very few sites and the biggest earners being hospitals anything that looks like it will queer that wicket will have them being extra nice and amenable to regulation so they can sell the business at a decent price and know that all the golden geese wont be taken away.

And the latest update to this. Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting). Bill Committee stages.

Hansard transcript

Steven Doughty. (Lab)

I want to single out one company for some pretty shady practices. That is ParkingEye, about which I have received multiple complaints

Stop tittering at the back.

He went on to say.

It is very clear to me that there is collusion between parking companies and solicitors’ firms—so-called roboclaims companies. They are often set up adjacently and involve the same directors and personnel. Incidentally, the same personnel get involved in the so-called appeals bodies.

And whilst this is a letter from a constituent, it's now been read out in parliamentary committee, so makes it in to Hansard.

I now pretty much know exactly how the parking companies and in particular the IPC have been running this sc am for the past 5 years. Basically both of the appeals processes are a complete and utter sham, (and part of that sham is Gladstones Solicitors itself)

Giles Watling. (Con)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that because of the very large amounts of money that can be involved in such sc ams—a company called Smart Parking was involved in one such sc am on my patch, in Clacton—organised crime can get involved, which can be intimidating?

Wow!

I wouldn't worry about it. They are bound to leave it with so many loopholes the PPCs will find another way of fleecing the unsuspecting.

I wouldn't worry about it. They are bound to leave it with so many loopholes the PPCs will find another way of fleecing the unsuspecting.

Sad but true PT.

That is waht it is all about, the courts are there to allow rich people hang on to their money and take it from others. That has been the prime function of civil procedure since Norman times

Absolutely EB otherwise Enforcement would have been abolished long ago.