Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021

Coupon-mad

The Government Consultation about private parking charges is now open (2021):

 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-charges-discount-rates-debt-collection-fees-and-appeals-charter-further-technical-consultation

The MHCLG are listening and want evidence and responses about:

- parking charge levels

- the discount for early payment 

- the appeals charter (should it be a cancellation charter do we/you think, not £20 for a short undefined time then walloped back up to full PCN plus add-one, as if nothing happened and people get sued anyway?)

- the so called ‘debt recovery’ charges (that are included in non-ParkingEye court claims despite the fact the PPCs don’t actually get paid by PPCs because the ‘debt recovery’ firms operate on a ‘no win no fee’ basis, as advertised yet again in the Exhibitors page of the upcoming IPC Conference).

Please have your say and tell your driving friends and relatives about it. Note that the last FULL day it’s open is August 26th so don’t try to do it later.

Coupon-mad

Keeping this reply post - reserved for updates and info

Coupon-mad

This from @bargepole:

“The online consultation offers a range of 5 options on every question, from ‘Strongly Agree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’, and is a box-ticking exercise.
I think I will send them a separate written response, with supporting evidence.”

My intention is also to supply evidence and proper reasoning by email.

Did I say ‘evidence’? Can’t stress enough you need to evidence your answers if you are a victim of a parking firm.

Tell the MHCLG why you say what you do and show them.

patient_dream

Interesting paragraph 

Please note, as no consultation is a representative sample we will place more value on the substantive content of responses than if a view was expressed by multiple respondents.

In plain english, government does not want a wave of parking companies all saying the same thing.
It certainly narrows down what parking companies can say

Umkomaas

The thread is about to disappear onto page 3, so just to stop that happening ....

Coupon-mad

Has anyone read the debt collection proposal yet?

Words fail me but I will try. If this is serious. it is both appalling and irrational.

The APAs have clearly been busy lobbying behind our backs since March.

There are no new safeguards except a little slap not to use misleading words on the letters, apart from that it’s open season. There is NOTHING new except a truly horrific proposal that will be worse than clamping. 

All the MHCLG appears to be achieving if this happens, is they’ve told the PPCs ‘put it on the signs, it’ll be fine if you do’. So they’d be helping the greedy industry they are meant to be reining in, to rip people off for higher sums of money.

This creates a 'statutory penalty' model in all but name, instead of contractual terms that have to be supported and justified. 

The Government were tasked with reining in not just the conduct of the debt recovery parasite firms, but the fees they've plucked out of thin air, as well.  And what is the proposed answer to that - they intend to make the highest made up fees a creature of statute and set them in stone. 

Irrationality in the extreme, worthy of a Judicial Review if this gets through.

It doesn't take a genius to know that there will be many more court claims, not fewer, if you legalise the funding of the third party firms that make it their life's work to carry the cases to court.

And ParkingEye, who have never added any 'admin costs' since Somerfield (which proves the false sums whacked on by the rest, are unsupported) can merrily add £70 and make an extra million per annum.

Never mind the lower parking charge of £50/£25, if the poor victim doesn’t receive a PCN because the industry don’t want to put them on windscreens and the postal PCN  goes astray in the post, or is never posted, or goes to an old address, suddenly the victim will in future get a 'Government-allowed PENALTY' demand for £120 or £140 which the trader doesn't have to justify in court.

Up to £200 in London.    

If the Government are looking to incentivise a race to court including old cases (which I can't believe they are) well then, this is going to achieve it.  

MILLIONS OF COURT CLAIMS ALL FUELLED BY THE ADDED £70.  MILLIONS BECAUSE THATS HOW MUCH OLD DATA THESE FIRMS ARE STORING. 

MORE AND MORE NEW ROBO CLAIM FIRMS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK AND LINING UP TO HAVE A PIECE OF THE PIE. 

JUDGES HAVING NO CHOICE BUT TO ALLOW EXTORTIONATE SUMS THAT THEY CURRENTLY DISALLOW.

Is this the Knight Act that MPs clamoured for? 

Just wow.

They have treated it as if the reason for the false costs is part of the deterrent.  Are they saying that the largest parking firm, ParkingEye, don't succeed with a deterrent then and need to add even more money to frighten people into paying? 

The reason for the false costs is to enrich 'debt recovery' firms who are already BPA and IPC members and who have been the cause of the worst misery and the court claims.

Even business/business contracts only result in a maximum added charge £40 under Late Payment legislation, and not to consumers.  

Why is this rogue industry potentially being allowed a massive and punitive level of costs that no other honest consumer-facing trader could ever be granted in court (unless the consumer acted unreasonably?).   

And they don't even pay nor incur these false costs.  

In my opinion, motorists may as well give up because this is not improving the recovery of the high streets. 

I am sorry, this can't be serious and cannot stand. 

If the MHCLG and MoJ seriously believe this would result in fewer CCJs, sadly they have the same nasty shock coming as the DFT and MoJ had in 2012.  I really thought the Government had learned from that failure and error, caused by letting the parking industry dictate the policy.  

Time to listen to the public again, MHCLG.  Funding the race to court and intimidation by third parties by allowing £70 a pop to fund just that is worse than setting the core parking charges too high.   I'd rather the Government had done that than this APA-led disaster waiting to happen.

Coupon-mad

Read it and weep.   

This will cause a race to court...again...and in Scotland too.

This is not the Knight Act and IMHO we all need to lobby our MPs NOW about this:



"Debt Collection Fees

31. Currently, if a parking charge is not paid or appealed within 28 days, many parking operators add a further fee for debt collection services. It must, however, be brought to motorists’ attention in terms and conditions that additional fees may apply. The ATAs currently cap these fees at £70. Ultimately, if a parking charge goes unpaid, parking operators can take a motorist to the county court to seek a County Court Judgement (CCJ).

32. We have included the issue of debt collection in this consultation because it is a contentious area for many stakeholders. Moreover, the level of additional fees is part of the overall deterrent effect of any new system for parking charges and it is appropriate that we consult on both together.

33. Government recognises that this is a sensitive area and that widespread concerns have been raised by consumer and motoring organisations about the fees and practices of some parking debt recovery agencies (DRAs).

34. At the same time, we recognise that a system of deterrents is necessary for the efficient management of parking on private land. If a parking charge is legitimately issued, it is reasonable that motorists pay within the specified time periods and that there be some consequences for late or non-payment.

35. We are guided by the following policy objectives in determining the new arrangements for debt collection:

• A reduction in harm to motorists from aggressive and intimidating debt collection practices.
• A reduction in the number of CCJs against motorists, with negative and potentially life-changing impacts on credit scores.
• The provision of a sufficient deterrent against the non-payment of legitimately issued parking charges, enabling the fair and efficient management of parking spaces on private land.

36. To reduce harm to motorists, we propose to cap the level of debt recovery fees at the existing industry level £70. In setting this cap, we have taken into consideration the deterrent effect, the amount of court fees and the costs to operators of enforcing parking charges. We will keep the cap under review and will take these factors into consideration when setting it in future.

37. Further, in the upcoming Code of Practice, the government will prohibit the use of misleading and intimidatory language by parking operators and DRAs. We will also oblige operators to provide information to motorists on where they can find free debt counselling and/or legal advice services.

38. In addition, the Code of Practice will introduce new safeguards to ensure that any parking operator wishing to levy additional fees must bring this clearly to the attention of the motorist in any terms and conditions. For example, this will include a requirement to state the term visibly, ensure that the terms are displayed at multiple locations and are written in plain and intelligible language for the average consumer to understand.

39. Moreover, the government proposes to require that all DRAs involved in the collection of private parking-related debt must be full members of an Accredited Parking Association (APA) to ensure their accountability to the sector.

40. To increase DRAs accountability to the Government, we also propose that any company wishing to collect private parking debts (before or after the County Court stage) must be certified against a robust new Certification Scheme. Government will develop the Scheme in consultation with industry and motoring stakeholders, including the consumer and debt advice sector. This scheme will set out a clear pre-action protocol, including the reasonable steps that a DRA must take to ascertain a motorists’ correct address. It will also set out clear standards of behaviour for DRAs, including higher expectations for the treatment of vulnerable people."

This bit reads like BPA-speak, swallowed hook, line and sinker, as the DFT did in 2012:

35. We are guided by the following policy objectives in determining the new arrangements for debt collection:

• A reduction in harm to motorists from aggressive and intimidating debt collection practices.
• A reduction in the number of CCJs against motorists, with negative and potentially life-changing impacts on credit scores.
• The provision of a sufficient deterrent against the non-payment of legitimately issued parking charges, enabling the fair and efficient management of parking spaces on private land.

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Has anyone read the debt collection proposal yet?

And ParkingEye, who have never added any 'admin costs' since Somerfield (which proves the false sums whacked on by the rest, are unsupported) can merrily add £70 and make an extra million per annum.

In 2019/20 ParkingEye made 2.174Million KADOE requests; at £70 each that is potentially another £152.18Million.

Coupon-mad

Yep but not all go that far and ParkingEye will ‘only’ get £25 from early payers so they’ll have to stop paying landowners £1000 per week ‘bounty’ like they did in the Beavis case.

Even so we are talking multiples of millions handed to ParkingEye on a plate, unless the MHCLG are saying added costs can only be charged by 3rd parties.  What constitutes a third party... PP Legal (Premier Park) and ADR LEGAL (Trading style of HX Parking’s alter ego) certainly don’t cut it or we are in Wonga territory, with Government approval.

Castle

I wonder how many of those £25 payments will mysteriously arrive "late" or going missing at the PPC.

NCC1701-A

You guys have saved me a couple of hundred pounds from private parking companies so have completed my feedback.  

With reference to Debt Collection Agencies I've quoted Supreme Court beavis case as £85 being all inclusive to costs of collection, and that Parking Eye do not add such additional costs. Also, strongly objected to all the quasi police enforcement such as no stopping in airports and used the case of the SC75 who has been chased for stopping at a Stop sign. And Equalities act instead of blue badge schemes.