Beavis loses battle, wins war?

Today the Department for Communities and Local Government announced several new regulatory reforms set to be introduced on 6th April 2016. These includes:

Amendments to off-street parking legislation will balance the right of land owners to control the use of their land and protect drivers from unscrupulous practices

It would seem that the Government has taken notice of the behaviour private parking industry and now intends to clip its wings. Quite what measures the DCLG will put in place have not been revealed at this time, but one would hope they would limit charges and enforce a single code of practice and independently enforce it.

History, however, should remind us to remain cautious. Back in 2012, the Protection of Freedoms Act was introduced to get rid of the ‘cowboy clampers’. Whilst this neanderthal-like practice was banned, the clampers simply turned their hands to ticketing, and have used equally aggressive practices to try and enforce them through the county court system. Despite the Government’s guidelines that accompanied the new legislation stating that only genuine loss could be recovered, the Supreme Court decided that the parking companies could enforce charges that bore no relation to any loss caused by the motorist. Arguably motorists are worse off now than they were before.So, let’s wait and see what the DCLG proposes… NB. The draft legislation will be published here when available.

Update – 20th January
The press release has now been taken down. It seems that someone in the DCLG got a bit overexcited and hit the publish button too soon. It is our understanding that the legislation needs further consultation, and won’t be enacted this April. However, it is quite clear that something is being done about the parking cowboys

4 Comments on “Beavis loses battle, wins war?

  1. I assume that this is going to be done by Statutory Instrument,and not after discussion in Parliament?

    Knowing this lot, their disdain for regulation and the way they pay lip service to the public in general, I am expecting a fudge at best, and more likely a strengthening of the PPC’s position.

  2. I just tried to open the page this article links to on the website and get the following message:
    “The page you’re looking for is no longer available

    The information on this page has been removed because it was published in error.

    This document was publish in error”

    Any ideas why this is?