What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
We told them so!!!!!!! - concrete

It appears that a bill is being sponsored through parliament to limit the powers of the private parking companies. They have finally figured out that giving the keys to the asylum to the lunatics is not a good idea!! How could the cadaverous Phillip Hammond ever think it was a 'Protection of Freedom' to allow these shark operators to pursue registered keepers of vehicles for spurious parking charges. Especially when it is by no means certain that the registered keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged 'offence'. It simply made life a whole lot easier for a bunch of money grubbing charlatans to pick our pockets, as well as riding roughshod over the basic priciple that one is 'innocent unless proven guilty'.

I hope the amendments proposed are carried and become law and we will have some of our rights restored. This is not a licence for any individual to park irresponsibly, although some do, but it must be worth protecting our basic rights to defend a charge instead of being persecuted simply for being a regsitered keeper.

Cheers Concrete

We told them so!!!!!!! - oldroverboy.

Write to your mp... e-mail.. I did asking him to support the bill.

We told them so!!!!!!! - Terry W

Agree with the general sentiments re exploitation but for those who own the space - shops, offices etc - they see their operations compromised but thoughtless parking.

So there is an argument to limit the "fines" to either the local authority level or the closest large car park x 3. This woud limit exploitation but make it costly to park where you should not.

We told them so!!!!!!! - daveyK_UK
Do you have a link to the bill?
We told them so!!!!!!! - daveyjp
This could have been chopped off at the knees years ago.

Make keeper details private and not for sale.

But when you live in a society where everything has a value and everything can be sold the £6m+ a year to the DVLA is more important than protecting anyone's freedom.

The Irony is next month the EU GDPR rules come into force and misuse of data will mean huge fines to companies breaking the law by sharing data, something the DVLA, private companes and debt collectors do hundreds of times a day.

Edited by daveyjp on 28/04/2018 at 21:35

We told them so!!!!!!! - Smileyman
This could have been chopped off at the knees years ago. Make keeper details private and not for sale. But when you live in a society where everything has a value and everything can be sold the £6m+ a year to the DVLA is more important than protecting anyone's freedom. The Irony is next month the EU GDPR rules come into force and misuse of data will mean huge fines to companies breaking the law by sharing data, something the DVLA, private companes and debt collectors do hundreds of times a day.

totally agree with these comments ...

We told them so!!!!!!! - Big John
The Irony is next month the EU GDPR rules come into force and misuse of data will mean huge fines to companies breaking the law by sharing data, something the DVLA, private companes and debt collectors do hundreds of times a day.

Yes but unfortunately under the "current law" this (private parking enforcement) is a legitimate use of the data

Edited by Big John on 28/04/2018 at 22:25

We told them so!!!!!!! - daveyjp
A PPC buying the data and then selling it to a debt recovery company has never been legal.

DVLA and Courts have both confimed this, but they still do it and why not if it makes the PPC and debt collector make money?
We told them so!!!!!!! - ExA35Owner

The issue is of balancing everyone's rights and duties.

Parking on someone else's propety isn't a right unless it is assigned to the motorist by the landlord. So somehow those who park where they shouldn't need to be able to be removed or penalised in some way. I'm reminded of one small business with space for three vehicles outside which depends on customers dropping off and collecting their items. Non-customers parking outside can completely stop delivery and collection, effectively making their business unviable. The threat of clamping, and now of PCNs, has been essential to the survival of the business.

On the other side of the coin, the use of ANPR by unscrupulous companies to chisel £70 or whatever out of legitimate customers who overstay by 3 minutes, is also a wrong.

Somehow the landlord needs access to deal with the selfish driver. Somehow the scammed driver needs protection from the sharks.

We told them so!!!!!!! - concrete

Some interesting comments chaps, well done. I have already penned comments to my MP and urged him to reply and to support the bill. Whilst I agree that local business should have some level of protection from irresponsible parking. Terry W hit the right note with a sensible level of charges for infringeing the rules. However these parking sharks need to employ people and make a tidy profit, hence the current level of charges. I think a sensible approach would be to pay for whatever time you have parked on your return, no problem. Easily monitored by modern technology. It may make general parking slightly more expensive but could reduce supervision costs. Food for thought. In light of facebook, Microsoft, Google et al I think a change in the data laws is now due. The presumption of innocence being paramount in this case.

Cheers Concrete

We told them so!!!!!!! - Bromptonaut

Some interesting comments chaps, well done. I have already penned comments to my MP and urged him to reply and to support the bill.

Whose bill is it (Govt or Private Member) and please could you provide a link?

We told them so!!!!!!! - concrete

Some interesting comments chaps, well done. I have already penned comments to my MP and urged him to reply and to support the bill.

Whose bill is it (Govt or Private Member) and please could you provide a link?

From memory it is an MP in the Hull area. Someone called Knight I think. Sorry to be so vague but a trusted friend was telling me the story in the pub last week and a motoring story in the weekend paper brough it back to memory. My friend is a political animal and watches and reads lots of articles on current legislation, he used to be in property law and is a reliable source. If I see him again this week I will try to elicit more information. But he was quite sure this is happening. I e mailed my MP and requested he find out the details and support the idea of amending the so called 'Protection of Freedoms Act'.

Cheers Concrete

We told them so!!!!!!! - Bromptonaut

From memory it is an MP in the Hull area. Someone called Knight I think. Sorry to be so vague but a trusted friend was telling me the story in the pub last week and a motoring story in the weekend paper brough it back to memory.

Thank you. Greg Knight, MP for East Yorks. Curent progress:

services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeof...l

Full text:

publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-201...1

We told them so!!!!!!! - Engineer Andy

I agree that on the one hand, some less than scrupulous car park owners/management firms, especially in town centres/retail parks have (in my opinion) been obviously playing the system and exploiting the many loopholes in the law, including poor prescedents.

On the other hand, I know from personal experience being a resident director of a private housing development (essentially like an unpaid MP for a development that didn't have their roads adopted by the local council) that parking control is often really needed, especially when you live near a railway station or town centre, meaning commuters and shoppers (as well as residents and their visitors) think they can 'do anything', parking on other people's allocated spaces (which are very limited), on the pavements, commnual gardens (which we also pay for the upkeep) and block the roads (bin lorry staff have threatened not to come by on more than one occasion).

We rely on a parking control firm to keep things in check, and, unusually, we (the resident directors) have control over whether people are let off or not. I believe we are fair, and often give people the benefit of the doubt, far more often than commercial operations. But, to be able to stop repeat offenders (many of whom are other residents), the parking firm needs to be able to quickly get access to vehicle owner's details so that costs don't go through the roof, as they only get paid via tickets (they aren't on retainer and we don't get a cut from tickets).

Its a delicate balancing act to keep things fair to all parties, and, say, making it much more time-consuming and expensive to take matters to court because people don't want to pay fines will just encourage them all the more. What I don't like is that on both sides of the debate, too many people are (especially those in the media, pressure groups and politicians) tarring everyone with the same brush.

I agree that many parking control firms are very poor - we've gone through about 4 in under 10 years, but what we need is for decent land owners/management organisations to be given a decent set of tolls (in law) to enable them to keep parking for those who its for, but on the other side of the coin, to get rid of the dodgy parking firms and encourage a far greater degree of professionalism, honesty and fair play.

Unfortunately, we need parking controls as most housing developments (especially newer ones), whether publicly owned or privately run, as well as 'public' or retail car parks, have limited capacity and often people take the Mick by abusing often sensible rules designed to encourage fair play and to keep people (shop keepres and business owners) trading. I just hope we don't get a 'knee-jerk' reaction on this issue, ending up with a parking free-for-all, which could easily end up with many decent businesses closing, never mind violent disagreements between people where they believe they been wronged (e.g. a neighbour deliberately parking additional cars in another's space with no legal redress or backup from management firms or councils).

We told them so!!!!!!! - concrete

Quite agree Andy. private resident parking should be just that, private and for residents. My son had a flat in Sheffield with a similar arrangement. Needed to keep shoppers out. I think the vast majority of the cases of abuse concern private/public parking. The public are encouraged to park on private land for a fee. The abuse is when an extortionate fee is demanded for a small infringement of the contract. Hence, pay when you return for what you have had, Simples.I can't see how that would lead to a parking free for all. Even the most blimkered driver can tell if he is entering a public/private car park or a residential area so the abuse is deliberate and that should attract a hefty penalty.

Cheers Concrete

We told them so!!!!!!! - gordonbennet

This will always be subjective, the bullies and sharks will flout the rules and take advantage and those more reasonable or meeker will suffer, its always been like this and always will be.

Some car users can be a nuisance causing untold misery to others, no better than the thugs which used to clamp indiscriminately and demand money, usually from those least likely to cause them trouble...eg odd how they avoided clamping non members of the caravan club or other untouchables.

We told them so!!!!!!! - Engineer Andy

Quite agree Andy. private resident parking should be just that, private and for residents. My son had a flat in Sheffield with a similar arrangement. Needed to keep shoppers out. I think the vast majority of the cases of abuse concern private/public parking. The public are encouraged to park on private land for a fee. The abuse is when an extortionate fee is demanded for a small infringement of the contract. Hence, pay when you return for what you have had, Simples.I can't see how that would lead to a parking free for all. Even the most blimkered driver can tell if he is entering a public/private car park or a residential area so the abuse is deliberate and that should attract a hefty penalty.

Cheers Concrete

You'd be surprised at how many non-residents try it on:

  • Those using a nearby 'factory shop' when their (free) small car park is full (mainly on the weekend);
  • Commuters not wishing to pay the £7 daily fee (or well over £1k pa) for parking in the nearby train station (5 mins walk). Similarly (doesn't affect where I live, but I know it does others, more in council CPZ areas) with people who live near schools, dentists and doctor's surgeries, who never have enough parking for all who turn up;
  • Taxi drivers having their lunch/tea break.

This is in addition to:

  • Residents knowing they are moving in to a home with X number of allocated (and numbered - so they can only use them) spaces but who have more vehicles than allocated spaces. One resident living in a flat had one allocated space and four vehicles;
  • Residents running a business from home with large vans, lorries, etc, taking more space and blocking others and the road, as well as too many;
  • Live-in boyfriends/girlfriends and sons/daughters pretending to be visitors so they can get an extra space or two (especially for those living in flats - only one allocated space).

One of the biggest (and growing) problems is people (particularly residents and live-in spouses) using leased or company cars not registered to the home on the development, so a cheap way of finding out who is the owner and persuing them for fines (much more difficult than if they lived on the development) is crutial to the process being viable.

I often have to go shopping in my car on weekdays to avoid my space being taken by others (often visitors) who either can't be bothered to find a suitable visitor space a bit further away or another resident parking an extra car. I'd rather avoid a confrontation that could turn ugly.

That's why I'm not advocating a complete repeal of the current set of laws regarding parking control and use of car's data for such purposes. What doesn't help the situation is that many parking firms seem (in my somewhat limited experience in dealing with them, second-hand) to employ really stupid enforcement 'officers' who don't follow quite basic rules, leading to genuine offenders being let off because of poor/a lack of evidence, as well as people who aren't offending being relentlessly pursued by the management to pay for their flashy lifestyles, some of which are, shall we say, not so legal in their approach (in my opinion).

I do think though that the onus whould be on the parking firm to definitively prove that someone is parking against the rules/illegally, rather than things like the entry/exit camersa, especially if the cannot prove the identity of all vehicles coming and going that look like one they are pursuing.

One thing you do have to wonder is that, for all the huge amounts of money collected in fines from people 'parking against the rules' in retail parks, how come that money never gets spent on resurfacing the car parks? Many nowadays are pothole fests. The one in Stevenage near me is a classic example.

We told them so!!!!!!! - madf

Never mind, recharging electric vehicles will be much simpler :-)

We told them so!!!!!!! - Engineer Andy

Never mind, recharging electric vehicles will be much simpler :-)

God help us when that comes in - cables all over the place, just waiting for youngsters and drunk yobbos to play with (never mind animals to chew through).

We told them so!!!!!!! - expat

Never mind, recharging electric vehicles will be much simpler :-)

God help us when that comes in - cables all over the place, just waiting for youngsters and drunk yobbos to play with (never mind animals to chew through).

Smart asses going out in the middle of the night to unplug your car and put the cable into theirs so they can recharge at your expense. The people across the road went away on holiday and came back to find a huge water bill. The rental next door had connected a hose to their tap, threw it over the fence and filled their swimming pool. The hose was gone by the time they came back and they can't prove anything.