Murdo Fraser MSP has introduced a bill to regulate the car parking industry.
An overview of the bill is here;
http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/106912.aspx
The consultation document is here;
http://www.parliament.scot/S5MembersBills/Murdo_Fraser_Consultation_Document.pdf
Several of Mr Fraser's constituents have fallen foul of Smart Parking, a company with a chequered history. Their low standards and deficient machinery have caused huge numbers of motorists to be issued charges when they have not transgressed. Their appalling behaviour may be the tipping point behind this bill, rather like the clamping in Changegate Car Park, Haworth of the car Betty Boothroyd was travelling in may have led to the banning of clamping in England and Wales.
The bill aims to address the issues of excessive charges, the inconsistency of signage, the process for appealing imposed penalties, and the presentation of invoices.
More controversially, to ensure that issues of 'fairness' to operators are also considered,the bill also aims to examine the introduction of keeper liability, which would help operators to identify those who would become liable for charges.
Anyone wishing to reply to the consultation needs to do so before 2 March 2018.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Seems a little irrelevant at present as PoFA doesn't apply in Scotland so only a known driver can be pursued.
ReplyDeletePart of the bill is to add POFA
DeleteAs Prankster said part of the bill introducers keeper liability. It doesn't say how. Everyone should go to the link and fill in the survey objecting to the keeper liability clause. There is other good stuff in it, though.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that you won't get one without the other.
DeleteSad to see an otherwise decent stab at a bill to regulate parking companies ruined by an attempt make a potentially innocent party guilty for the crimes of another who can't be found. Even the police don't have powers like that.
ReplyDeleteWe must oppose the keeper liability. The current system does not need it. All that is required is some legislation to license the operaators but with none of the POFA rubbish and keeper liability.
ReplyDeleteWhen you think about it, it really is outrageous. It's the sort of thing a tin pot dictatorship would impose to keep the people down. Your neighbour does something bad, you will pay for it if we can't find him.
DeleteIf this consultation goes the way of the one undertaken for England and Wales, then it will not be seeing light of day for years if ever. If thi is to be heard at Westminster then common sense says make one national policy. NO BPA or IPC, one independent body that is funded by the PPC's but without them being able to claim they have no powers? Councils are best placed to ensure full compliance, the salaries of those monitoring the PC's should be paid for by the PPC's. Their charges should be brought in line with each council's local tariffs. Appeals too could be handled . Planning consent would also have to be in line, along with full and transparent consent from landowners. Their car pk would also have to be in line with council car parks, this will end the unlit car park scam and a lot more too.If all keepers have 3 or more named drivers on their insurance, that would greatly reduce any probability of who was actually driving.
ReplyDeleteThis bill is Scotland only. Scotland’s Parliament is at Holyrood, Edinburgh (and will not be ‘heard’ at Westminster (where this matter is fully devolved).
ReplyDeleteReading the consultation document, it is clear his main points are simply window-dressing. The aparrent afterthought (Keeper Liability) is the big ticket - no doubt to assuage the representations from the PPC’s who, in return for controls on the maximum they can charge motorists, will be given the silver bullet they crave, Keeper Liability. Making all their Christmases come early - whilst the MSP gets his own ‘peoples champion award.
To thwart this - I need tales of how bad POPLA and the appeals processes really are down south.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart of the proposal is to have a fully independent appeals process. In my correspondence with him, he's already aware of the issues of POPLA, IAS and conflicts of interest.
ReplyDeleteBut you're right - keeper liability is the main issue and must be resisted. As said elsewhere, it give them more power than even the police, has resulted in the courts down south being flooded with claims to the extent they can barely cope and has heaped misery on innocent people.
The real danger is that most MSPs will see "keeper liability" and be unaware of what it is, that it involves making someone legally responsible for the actions and debts of another and they'll sleepwalk it through. There needs to be an orchestrated campaign to inform them of just how dangerous this is.
I don't see keeper liability as the main issue. A local authority NTO makes the keeper statutorily responsible.
ReplyDeleteWhat is needed is PPC appeals to be put under a statutory framework because self regulation has clearly not worked. The government of the day (particularly the HoL) was bambozzled by the BPA over PoFA. The original Bill had far tougher regulatory powers and the legislators lost their bottle.
I don't know the contents of Sir Greg Knight's Private Member's Bill. Hopefully it will contain real teeth.
What I would like to see is firstly the abolition of POPLA/IAS and their function taken over by London Tribunals/TPT. The additional staffing/resources needed to cope with the likely increased caseload to be paid for by the PPCs. They can b***h all they like about loss of influence: it's the price they have to pay for the inability to self regulate. Secondly, PPC invoices need to be statutorily capped. One way to do so would be to link them to the relevant LA PCN full/discounted contravention amounts. If the LA increases theirs then the PPC can do so as well. If it means changing their signage so be it. The cost will be more than paid for by the additional revenue.
For Scotland the current situation with no keeper liability suits consumers just fine, as long as they know only the driver can be made liable. Serial abusers can and have been claimed against so that is already covered. What really needs to be done in Scotland is for driver only liability to be more well known. No need for new legislation.
ReplyDelete