Eric Pickles puts his weight behind the Daily Mail Campaign - Saturday's edition!

Daps

About to add to this - emailing the following to my MP, and will re-word and email to Mr. Pickles also.

"I am a constituent of yours and am writing with concerns regarding the actions of the DVLA.

Like many motorists, I have been given unfair parking charges by Private Parking Companies (PPCs). The Daily Mail have recently highlighted the disgraceful behaviour of these companies and the ways in which they attempt to make money from motorists, including targeting the elderly and the sick, and using scare tactics to attempt to force people to pay their invoices.

The reason the PPCs are able to scare motorists is because the DVLA are releasing details about the registered keepers of vehicles to PPCs that are members of an Accredited Trade Association and are charging only a tiny fee of £2.50 per request. A Freedom of Information Act request has recently brought to light the fact that each requests costs the DVLA £2.84. Therefore not only are these requests failing to make money for the Treasury, but in fact the PPCs are being subsidised with taxpayer’s money!

I’m sure that the justification for this is that the DVLA have been misled into believing that PPCs having legitimate business practices as well as robust, fair and independent appeals processes for unfair charges to be challenged by motorists, however my own experiences as well as everyone else I have spoken with that has had dealings with PPCs have shown these companies to have very illegitimate business practices and operate in an unprofessional and unfair manner. In addition, the supposedly independent appeals service that relates to tickets from PPCs that are members of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) is not transparent (eg. It does not even name the adjuducator), does not use correct legal arguments (eg. It states that the burden of proof is always on the appellant which is clearly ridiculous), and is vindictive and unprofessional in the way in which it deals with appeals (eg. The letter rejecting an appeal of mine began with the words “the appellant has raised a number of well-rehearsed arguments, none of which have any merit at all”).

That the DVLA is subsidising and enabling these companies truly is a national disgrace, and I would appreciate it if you could urgently raise this with the relevant minister."

1505grandad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I wrote:-

You may have been made aware of the Daily Mail's recent run of articles on the huge sums being demanded by Private Parking Companies (PPCs) and their tactics on concentrating on the elderly and sick.

In order for them to contact the vehicle owners, they need to get the Registered Keeper's name and address from the DVLA. For that, the PPCs pay £2.50 yet the DVLA released figures under Freedom of Information that each enquiry costs them £2.84.

Why are the DVLA subsidising the PPCs when the DVLA have a monopoly on the information requested? Why are their charges not increased to not only cover the costs but to produce an income for the Treasury.

Would you consider raising this point with the relevant minister?

Thank you.

I sent the following email to my MP using the template supplied by Guys Dad (many thanks) which included a paragraph (which I put in italics in my email) about my own local Surgery appointing a PPC:-

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 06 August 2014 20:04
To: xxxxxxxxxxMP
Subject: Subsidising DVLA re PPC Registered Keeper Details
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxMP

I am a constituent of yours and I am writing with concerns regarding the actions of the DVLA.

You may have been made aware of the Daily Mail's recent run of articles on the huge sums being demanded by Private Parking Companies (PPCs) and their tactics on concentrating on the elderly and sick.

In this respect I am absolutely appalled to see that my local surgery, xxxxxxxxxxxxx, has recently appointed one of these odious PPCs. I am sure that, if it has not already happened,
the old people, the sick and the vulnerable who visit the surgery will be issued with one of these invoices - for the flimsiest of reasons. These will surely be paid by the motorists as they think that they are official "fines", which they are not.
Hopefully the surgery will soon see the error of their ways and allow me to leave leaflets in the building referring the motorists to a parking ticket forum (MSE) where the invoices
can easily be challenged.

In order for them to contact the vehicle owners, they need to get the Registered Keeper's name and address from the DVLA. For that, the PPCs pay £2.50 yet the DVLA released figures under Freedom of Information that each enquiry costs them £2.84.

Why are the DVLA subsidising the PPCs when the DVLA have a monopoly on the information requested? Why are their charges not increased to not only cover the costs but
to produce an income for the Treasury?.


Would you consider raising this point with the relevant minister?

Thank you.
xxxxxxxxxx

THIS IS THE REPLY FROM MY MP:-

11/08/2014
Dear xxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your email, but I have some sympathy for GP practices and car parking at GP’s surgeries.

I don’t think it is unreasonable for GP Practices to want to ensure that only their patients are able to use their car park and not unreasonable to try and ensure that those who are not
patients don’t unnecessarily take up car parking spaces.

If you are experiencing particular difficulties with xxxxxxxxxxx, can I suggest that you take them up with the Practice direct, and after all, if you are a patient at xxxxxxxxxx, I would
have thought that you too would have an interest in ensuring that only patients like you can use the car park. If you are not a patient at xxxxxxxxxx, then I don’t think it is unreasonable for xxxxxxxxx to expect that someone who is not a patient won’t park in their patients’ car park.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxxxMP


Obviously my MP (or the person replying on my MPs behalf) is not interested in the subject matter (heading) of my email, as the only comment is about the paragraph concerning my local Surgery!! (Surely by using the phrase (my local Surgery) in my
paragraph it would suggest to a reasonable person that I am indeed a patient there - so why does the reply query if I am?).

Because of my various medical problems I visit the Surgery frequently and have never found parking difficult, no matter what time of the day.

I assume therefore that my point re the DVLA will not be raised with the relevant minister.

At the moment I am seething, and will therefore leave my reply to the MP for a few days, otherwise the words used will be unprintable.

BTW I am now an ex-supporter of the xxxxxxxxxxxx party.

In the meantime, if anybody has any comments that I should include in my reply, please feel free.

Just off to see doctor re test results at the Surgery - with luck I'll get a pcn.

The_Deep

You raised the question of parking at surgeries, you cannot therefore blame the MP for addressing the problem.

These are politicians with whom you are dealing. I complained that my local council, (Reading), was wasting my money by passing resolutions in support of Palestine. The Leaderene, (Labour of course), wrote back accusing me of not wanting a peaceful settlement of the problem.

bazster

Always a mistake to conflate multiple issues.

bod1467

bazster wrote: »

Always a mistake to conflate multiple issues.

Exactly. You gave them an opportunity to cherry-pick what they responded to.

Guys_Dad

1505grandad wrote: »

I sent the following email to my MP using the template supplied by Guys Dad (many thanks) which included a paragraph (which I put in italics in my email) about my own local Surgery appointing a PPC:-

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..........................................
.............................................Just off to see doctor re test results at the Surgery - with luck I'll get a pcn.

Forst of all, I agree with the previous comments about your complaint. It gave the MP too much leeway to cherry pick. That is why I kept mine factual to one point with no opportunity but to either answer the narrow question or avoid.

However, you have, at least, got a reply. Apart from an email from his office asking me to confirm I was one of his constituents, I have heard nothing as yet, but it is the holiday season, so I will give it a bit more time.

I would reply back and this time thank them for the reply but repeat the DVLA charge point and ask for a reply on that point.

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

These are politicians with whom you are dealing. I complained that my local council, (Reading), was wasting my money by passing resolutions in support of Palestine. The Leaderene, (Labour of course), wrote back accusing me of not wanting a peaceful settlement of the problem.

Wow, talk about missing the point!

Daps

I got the following back from my MP this afternoon.

In the whole I think his office have done a decent job of drafting a pretty fair reply.

The one thing his office don't seem to be up to date on is the existence of the IPC which really is the problem in my view. Even though the BPA companies issue invoices which are just as outrageous, they are at least beatable at POPLA for those who do the research. Not that this is fair at all, since they should at least take mitigation into account, but at least they have an avenue by which to get the charges dismissed. Unlike the IPC who do not offer a genuine appeals service, and whose IAS is a complete joke.

I will be highlighting the differences between the two ATAs in my follow up email and stressing that it really is the IPC companies that need to be banned from receiving keeper details from the DVLA until they set up a proper appeals service.

His reply is below:

=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about the activities of Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Prior to writing this letter, I have done some research into the activities of these companies and how the general public can deal with them if they consider that charges are unfair. It is important to note that these charges are not fines. Effectively, they are notices that you are in breach of contract, namely for parking longer than permitted or in a place where parking is not permitted. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is important to remember that private landowners have the right to charge for and police proper parking on their land, though any penalty charges they levy should not be disproportionate. For this reason, they are able to apply to receive information about the registered owner of a vehicle and each application has to be made individually and justified. The forms that they are obliged to use for these applications can be readily found online and I enclose the link here so that you can see an example for yourself: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206706/v888x3.pdf. This also confirms that £2.50 has to be paid per application.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am sure you are aware that there are a number of reputable organisations, including the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, moneysavingexpert.com and the AA who offer advice to motorists on what to do if they are sent a penalty charge from a private parking company, especially if they consider the charge is unfair in any way. There are a number of strategies that you can adopt, including simply not paying though if you choose to do this, the parking company has the right to take you to the small claims court. However, if a parking company is harassing you, you are within your rights to ask them to stop and, if need be report them to the landowner (few landowners handle their own parking enforcement) or to the British Parking Association. You may also be interested to know that, according to moneysavingexpert.com 45% of the 23,500 who appealed against a penalty charge using the private parking appeals system won.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have been unable to verify your claim that it costs the DVLA £2.84 to process each of the requests for vehicle owner information for private parking companies. I will raise this together with your wider concerns with Ministers and will write to you again when I have received a response.

=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=
[/FONT]

scrooze247

Umkomaas wrote: »

The best so far. Community Secretary Eric Pickles has put his not insubstantial weight firmly behind the Mail's week-long campaign.



The article goes on to also put the spotlight on companies who 'employ' PPCs (principal/agent relationships) - suggesting joint and several liability, and likens the potential outcome of this akin to the PPI mis-selling scandal.

It goes on to comment on the earnings and lifestyles of the odious squad of beneficiaries leeching on the misfortunes of motorists, who sport sumptuous mansions, high spec Mercs, Aston Martins and Audis as well as awarding themselves excessive salaries (SRS predictably mentioned in dispatches in this context), mega share dealings and private education for their offspring.

And now for the quote to beat any quote, and to emphasise the total hypocrisy of this scandal, comes from one who trousered £17 million from the sale of his PE shares to Capita:



Well he'd better tell that to Rachel then! It makes me want to vomit.

Here's the link, but have the sick bowl ready!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713646/We-curb-parking-cowboys-says-Cabinet-Minister-Victory-Mail-campaign-official-probe-launched-bully-boys.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Let's get ready to grumble!

I have just emailed this to The CEO of LIDL with whom I have a slight disagreement.Don't think it will help my case but it sure as hell makes me feel good !

:mad:

martmonk

So I used Guys Dad's email as a base and threw in an introductory paragraph relating back to previous correspondence on Northumbria Healthcare and the resulting termination of Parking Eye. This morning I've received this response.

I'd urge others to continue to contact their MP's.

Xxxxx
Thank you for your email concerning private parking companies.

I have written to the Chief Executive of the DVLA and I will let you know when I receive his reply.

Mary Glindon MP