Jump to content


The New Code of Parking


Recommended Posts

This legislation will make it far more difficult for the parking crooks, or rogues, to use the Government parlance [far too polite] to make the kind of money they have been making in the past.

However in future  it will also make it that much harder to get out of paying if or when the motorist breaches a contract.It may be that in many instances it may be cheaper to pay the reduced sum within the 14 day limit.

 

In the meantime, those motorists who have already received a PCN should read the legislation carefully since although some of  it does not come into force until next year other things are already expected to be in force now. Not that any of  the parking crooks have taken a blind bit of notice. But it is only a question of time before the penny drops for some of them.

 

 

  Some of the things that will change.

1] A new PCN that does not look like the Council PCN

2]Mitigating reasons for overstaying such as breaking down

3] a genuine error like misskeying their VRM will go unpunished or a maximum charge of £20 if a major keying error

4] have a valid, ticket, permit or blue badge but failed to display it correctly

5] additional rip off fees banned

6] charges cut by 50% in most cases

7] compulsory grace time of 10 minutes 

8] compulsory 5 minute  cooling off period

9] nothing in the Code of Practice overrules the provisions and  enforcement of bye laws

10] the parking period is not the period when entering and leaving the car park

11] material changes to the running of the car park must temporary notices for  at least 4 months detailing the changes

12] must have at least one notice that can be read by disabled drivers without leaving their cars

13] camera vehicles must bear the logo of the parking operator and cannot conduct covert surveillance by saying they are security or road safety unit for example

14] parking attendants should wear the livery of the company they work for and if they are camera operators, they must upload the images daily so as not to retain GDPR data

15] if the parking charge is not being issued under PoFA it must not reference them [are you reading this VCS?]

16]Whilst the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allow parking operators to issue a notice of parking charge to a vehicle keeper or vehicle-hire firm, operators must not when issuing or pursuing a notice of parking charge presume that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of that vehicle breaching conditions leading to issue of a notice of parking charge.

17] when sending PCNs operators must include the date of sending the notice as well as the date that the notice was written

18]  land owners contracts must include a map of the boundary , any bye laws in operation and duration of the permission of the contract

19] with self ticketing operators should not issue by post parking tickets when they could have been reasonably issued as windscreen tickets

 

The list is not exhaustive still and motorists should read the new CoP to pick out instances that help their case where I might have missed them. 

Most of the above are already in force and Judges should take note of them and apply them now. As the Minister said

"      The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation.

Obviously things such as new PCNs and signage will take time as well as negotiating new contracts with land owners. However I think the government are expecting that things that can be brought into force now , such as the banning of additional charges, should already be in operation. If you are due a Court hearing soon, I reccommend that you produce the new CoP with the strictures that the government are expecting so that Judges can come to decisions in your favour even when the parking crooks have failed to implement changes that they should have observed.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious, does this mean the old I was not the driver response is applicable again?

 

16]Whilst the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allow parking operators to issue a notice of parking charge to a vehicle keeper or vehicle-hire firm, operators must not when issuing or pursuing a notice of parking charge presume that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of that vehicle breaching conditions leading to issue of a notice of parking charge.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Great work LFI.

 

There is a lot to take in here.

 

However, it's slowly dawning on me that there will be big changes to how we fight these PPC cases.  None of us have much free time but I'm trying to make a little file with suggestions made from time to time (normally from LFI) on how to improve WSs so as to have as a reference point for future cases.

 

I suppose bit by bit the WSs will change and each new one can build on the previous one's changes.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homer I don't think that most Judges assume that the keeper and the driver are the same. I think it is perhaps a warning to the parking crooks that when compiling a WS they don't say that they are assuming they are one and the same. Many parking companies are of the opinion that if the keeper does not divulge who was driving it must have been the keeper themself. In their eyes there is no other reason not to admit the driver's name. 

 

And yet in the Act, keepers are only invited to provide the name not demanded to name them. Obviously if it was the spouse or family member driving, why would the keeper tell the crooks any more than as little as possible and certainly not dob one of their own in.

 

I am sure the crooks know this too, but it suits their agenda to blame the keeper to try and get the keeper to pay either the PCN or in Court. . But it seems we miss a trick on CAG that we don't have a notice in the Sticky section that especially when filling out one's first post that poster is  careful to avoid stating who the driver was. We know that the crooks do read posts on the forum [well some of them  'cos not all of them are that educated. That is why I said 'cos rather than because since three letters are easier to understand  than eight.] If the keeper/driver states that the driver parked the car in the car park rather than I parked the car, it makes it doubly difficult for the crooks to get a conviction on the keeper as the driver  when their PCNs are not PoFA compliant. And it is surprising how often they are not compliant  considering the Act has been in force for ten years. Goes to show the level of education we are up against. Not surprising that we win more cases than we lose. 

 

Interestingly even Parking Eye who nearly almost got their PCNs compliant are now in the situation where none of their PCNs are compliant. This is because they use the ANPR arrival and departures as the period of parking  which is a requirement under PoFA. Whilst it has always been the period of parking that had to be declared we have been asleep to that fact and it is only now that it has been clarified in the new Act that the period of parking is from when the car is parked until when the car leaves the parking place that should be the parking period.

 

I expect one of these days in Court it will come to light that the Codes of Conduct of BPA and the IPC are not compliant with the old PoFA 2012 never mind the new Act. At the moment BPA are too busy trying to get the new Act reversed in their favour rather than guiding their members to accept that their CoP is not up to date and make amendments. In their current CoP they don't even mention the period of parking. They did so back in 2012 but quietly dropped it presumably because of the ANPR use by many of its members. And of course the DVLA didn't pick it up. However the clock is ticking....

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right Dave there are big changes coming but the curious thing is that none of the parking crooks appear to have amended their ways at all. They are still issuing tickets for minor points that have no hope in Court and their WS's are as poor as ever.  

 

I feel sorry for those motorists who just pay up to avoid paying more later or to avoid Court when had they chosen the not going to pay mantra could have saved themselves paying anything.

 

One of the things that perhaps we could look at is the subject of the extra charges on PCNs. I know that the majority og Judges are against them but there have been some of the more senior Judges who have agreed that they can be charged. This is often because they are not so familiar with PoFA 2012 and are using other Laws to find in favour of the crooks. the new Act does spell out not only that those extra charges are" a rip off" [yes a Minister used that expression] but that it was always the intention of Parliament that the amount on the car park sign was the maximum payment. So it is not something new it has always been in the Act just never pointed quite as clearly as it is being done now. 

 

If we go that route, plus point out that the ones who charge the extra amounts are the parking rogues that Parliament is trying to close down or at least control, then they crooks may stop the practice quicker than otherwise. At the same time if we ask the Judge to consider stopping those who overcharge to be refused access to the DVLA that may concentrate the minds a bit more. 

 

It is a different defence than one we have used in the past but it is much briefer and has the backing of Parliament not just using past cases as a reference.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Interesting.  For the very first time one of the PPCs has deigned to mention the new CoP (obviously when it's being challenged!)

 

In this thread where there is the fleecers' WS, around post 43  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/450405-premierbw-anpr-pcn-claimform-overstay-lldl-puregym-20-castle-bridge-rd-notts-ng7-igx-help-with-ws/page/2/#comments

 

It's not actually in the WS but in some daft "Skeleton Argument" attachment, point 22.

 

I've tried to counter it in post 51 or thereabouts  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/450405-premierbw-anpr-pcn-claimform-overstay-lldl-puregym-20-castle-bridge-rd-notts-ng7-igx-help-with-ws/page/3/#comment-5174403

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if that COP would be of use to this person, argument over use of disabled bay, which fleecers say is for visitor's but she cannot access her allocated standard bay due to insufficient sopace to get out of wheelchair, so now she is going to county court with a claim for over £1000 with another on the way for £800

 

Thoughts?  will she be able to use Equalities Act 2010 as a defence as allocated bay no use.

 

WWW.WALESONLINE.CO.UK

'I think to put somebody in that position in 2022 in a developed country, it is disgusting,' said Cerys Gemma

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this story a couple of days ago on the BBC website, but the version you've found goes into much greater detail.

 

Sticking a wheelchair user in a car space next to a pillar so she can't open her damn door properly and doing nothing to remedy the situation seems like disability discrimination to me.

 

The BBC version said she'd been ordered by the county court to pay, but that could be the journalist getting it wrong.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they go on the straight facts its an easy CCJ for the fleecer's as strictly Breach of Contract and the disability issue irrelevant, so then its up to her to take them to court for Direct and Indirect Discrimination, as in failure to make Reasonable adjustment, like swapping the allocated bay for a disabled access one.  Of course one would hope the Judge taking the case would see the wider implications and chuck it out ab initio and chastise New generation Parking

 

 Issue is its her Grandfather's Flat, and she will be his tenant These are worse than even Simple Simon if that's possible,  That sort of company invoice delivery driver's in liveried vans for using visitor spaces, or stopping outside or not in a bay.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

One might wonder why she couldn't have reversed the car into her parking space so that the pillar was on the other side of her car. or perhaps complained to the crooks at the outset before parking in the disabled visitors spaces. Or even appealed to the land owners to try and bring some sanity into the situation. Taking the Law into her own hands with crooks is not best policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However she parks not enough space to get a wheelchair between the parked cars, sadly a the disability aspect is not strictly applicable to the claim she will likely get a CCJ, then again if the Judge is fed up of parking Cowboys they may get a shock.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I see there has been some, small movement from the PPCs regarding the government Code of Practice - but the fleecers have managed to get worse rather than better.

 

We often talk on the forums about the 10-minute grace period.

 

The government CoP extends this to 15 minutes.

 

The BPA have complied, point 13 at  https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf  but, sting in the tail coming, divide into five minutes at the start and 10 minutes at the end.

 

The IPC period at the start must be "sufficient" (so that'll be one second then) and again 10 minutes at the end, point 13  https://theipc.info/brandings/2/resources/documents/Code_of_Practice_v8.pdf

 

In AOLA's thread she took more than five minutes to pay and then paid for a lengthy stay and didn't overstay.  The PPC are still after her because she took longer than five minutes to pay!  So in essence the fleecers have now decided that the grace period upon arrival is five minutes.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

That premise might well not stand up in court.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...