Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021

patient_dream

Fruitcake said:

The other point I made of course was about the fake debt collector fees. I quoted the Gary Osner's admission that he had made it up to make more money, and I included a link to the Parkmavern article.

I too mentioned this to Sir Greg, Mr Wishart and Mr Sunak.

I have also saved the page you refer to as an html

I rather think that the MHCLG simply don't understand what has been going on ?

Jenni_D

Another point I covered in my feedback was about the unreliability of ANPR. I didn't remember about the article but I mentioned about double-dipping (missing one or both of first exit and second entry images) and how the PPCs pay lip-service to manual checks but in reality they use an automated, low-human-intervention business model to maximise profitability.

patient_dream

For those who don't know who is the MP for your area this government web site will tell you with contact info

https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP

From this thread you have enough information for your MP.

Ask them to put your concern in the house of commons and directly to those involved in the parking code of practice who is MHCLG

Your MP is empowered to work for their constituents and that's you.

Fruitcake

You can also use this website to contact your MP as well as councillors. You will get follow up emails to check if your MP has responded.

WriteToThem - Email your Councillor, MP, MSP, MS, MLA or London Assembly Member for free

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

You can also use this website to contact your MP as well as councillors. You will get follow up emails to check if your MP has responded.

WriteToThem - Email your Councillor, MP, MSP, MS, MLA or London Assembly Member for free

This is what we must ask people to do this month!

We MUST all remind MPs (and the ones who spoke up most in 2018) about the main two debates and how ending the false 'added debt recovery' (the very money that funds the roboclaim solicitors like Gladstones) was a main aim of the Knight Act.

MPs should be asking the MHCLG what on EARTH Has gone wrong since March? 

Have they listened to the BPA and IPC too much after they tried to bring a Judicial Review against the Government, otherwise why on earth have the MHCLG decided that a max £160 enhanced and disproportionately high 'debt' demand (that MPs wanted to end) can now be up to £200?!


FEB 2018

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

Pete Wishart 

... This Bill will hopefully signal the beginning of the end of the parking cowboys.

Self-regulation has obviously failed dramatically. The British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the middle of Gobi desert. The parking cowboys hide behind BPA membership to give a veneer of legitimacy. Every time I take up issues with Smart Parking, it just comes back to me and says, “We’re members of the BPA so it should be all right.”

I make a plea, too, on the use of debt collection agencies, which has to end. They are grossly invasive, threatening and meant to intimidate people into paying. I have seen some appalling examples of the use of debt collection agencies and how they increase the intensity of their threats and intimidation. I have had constituents who have had 10 threatening letters, which increase to the point where I almost think they are going to be taken out and shot at dawn, such is the level of their threats.

The National Motorists Action Group has also found an unsavoury profitable collusion between private parking companies and debt collection agencies. 

It is right that PPCs should expect settlement and that they write letters, but local authorities do not use private collection agencies, so if it is good enough for the statutory sector it should be good enough for the private sector, too.

Stephen Doughty 

I am glad to hear that the Minister supports the Bill. Will he also look closely at the links between one of the so-called trade associations, the International Parking Community, and Gladstones Solicitors, and the listing of all these accredited operators? It is clear from Companies House information that there are clear links between the individual directors of Gladstones and the IPC, which goes under United Trade and Industry Ltd, and that there has been a repeated changing of names and addresses in an attempt to cover up these links.

Rishi Sunak 

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the alleged conflicts of interest within the industry. That is certainly something that the code should look to improve. 

On his other point, he is right that the way some operators contact members of the public is deeply worrying, as we have heard, and how they label tickets. We have also heard familiar stories of intimidating letters issued by companies that often falsely give the impression of being from a solicitor. These letters often contain threatening, legalistic language, hide appeals information in the small print and disingenuously push people towards paying unjust fines, unaware of their right to appeal.

Yvonne Fovargue 

Does the Minister agree that parking companies should not be able to raise these levels of fines if a levy is imposed on them to facilitate a new scheme?

Rishi Sunak 

The hon. Lady raises the issue of the level of fines, which is also something the code is considering. 

In theory, there is currently a maximum fine; the job of the new code is to make sure it is properly enforced.

NOVEMBER 2018:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-23/debates/005F9F65-57E5-4AD0-B6EC-C26C75A7AAA2/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

Pete Wishart 

(Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)

... I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the new independent appeals process that he outlines in the new clause will be free of charge. That is important, because I have seen some of these fines range to over £100—I think the top one I have seen, at the end of one of the very many threatening letters that are used by debt collection companies, was in the region of £140 to £160. 

...I am particularly delighted that the Government are looking at debt collection issues. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will state explicitly that operators cannot sell or assign debt to a third party, as that has to happen. The use of aggressive debt collection companies is probably the most grotesque, threatening and intimidating feature of parking companies’ behaviour, and the part of their operation that concerns me most. I cannot remember which hon. Member mentioned vulnerable customers who receive some of these letters, and what it must do if they receive a letter that tells them that the charge will impact on their credit rating. I think that is illegal—perhaps one of the greater legal minds here will clarify that for me—but that is the sort of thing that those letters include.

Debt collection companies increase the tempo and rate of intimidation and threat. One of my constituents received 10 letters from a range of different companies, with an increasing tone of belligerence and threat. It is right for private parking companies to expect settlement, and to deploy reasonable steps to recover it, but we cannot continue to allow threatening and aggressive letters that demand payment simply for parking a car.

patient_dream

In the letters I have sent, I said that the MHCLG should not fall into the trap the DFT did, after listening to the BPA. It is clear this was a major error hence the new code of practice

Jenni_D

Bump. I intend to write to my MP too. Edit: Done. This is what I sent:

Dear {MP NAME},

I am writing to you in regards to the Technical Consultation on Private Parking Charges that is currently underway in respect of Sir Greg Knight's Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 which was passed by both Houses of Parliament, and is awaiting the above consultation plus appointment of independent appeal adjudication prior to full enactment.

I am concerned about the above consultation as it looks like an attempt by the private parking industry to circumvent one of the main intents of the Act; namely the removal of false debt recovery charges from the values of Parking Charge Notices should they proceed to a court claim. There are several references within Hansard where your fellow MPs (including your colleague {Edited for anonymity}) have made it clear that debt recovery charges (which are never actually incurred by any parking operator - debt recovery companies even advertise this fact to their clients: if the consumer doesn't pay following debt recovery letters then there's no fee to the parking operator) must not form any part of the invoice amount levied on a consumer. I have included a couple of relevant links below from House discussions in February 2018 and November 2018:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-23/debates/005F9F65-57E5-4AD0-B6EC-C26C75A7AAA2/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

The parking industry (through their trade associations the BPA and the IPC) threatened to try for a judicial review of the Act which has led to the current consultation which a) was never previously announced and b) attempts to incorporate such debt recovery charges which are merely a means for parking operators to boost profits (i.e. double recovery of a cost that has never been borne, as specifically stated in the Supreme Court case UKSC-2015-0116 for Parking Eye vs Beavis where it was held that a parking charge value of £85 incorporated all the costs of business, including debt recovery and profit).

Allowing excessive parking charges with added debt recovery amounts will simply further the parking industry's "robo-claims" model which is using the Court system as a means of (alleged) debt recovery. It is paramount that the will of Parliament be followed, and that the MHCLG not be hoodwinked by the parking industry in the same way as was the DfT in 2012 when the Protection of Freedoms Act was enacted ... before the 2012 Act there were less than 1,000 court claims (UK wide) in respect of parking charge notices; now I believe the figure is in excess of 1,000,000 with perhaps 10% of those reaching hearings!

I trust that you will concur that the machinations of the parking industry must be stopped, and that the Act must deliver on what Parliament intended, and so I ask that you join your colleagues in holding the MHCLG to account on this. I am sure that your colleague {Edited for anonymity} will be happy to appraise you regarding the apparent underhand practices the parking industry engages in to get their "pound of flesh" from consumers; if you wish to read more on this you can see more "horror stories" at MSE Forums at the link below:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/categories/parking-tickets-fines-parking

Yours sincerely,

{MY NAME}

Router66

Just emailed my MP with similar points raised, along with details/evidence of a case that has been running since 2015.
(does not show the IAS in good light).
Does anyone know if there is a standard response time from MP's? - the clock is ticking... 

Umkomaas

Router66 said:

Just emailed my MP with similar points raised, along with details/evidence of a case that has been running since 2015.
(does not show the IAS in good light).
Does anyone know if there is a standard response time from MP's? - the clock is ticking... 

There might be a suggested turnaround time for replies, but if it exists, I'm not aware of what it is. But what I would say is that in general MPs have been quite responsive, albeit often not overly helpful in resolving a particular PCN. 

But there's a bigger picture in play with the upcoming changes following the Sir Greg Knight Parking Act. If sufficient MPs are peed off enough sufficiently aware of the problems created by the private parking sector in the attempted blocking of a number of parts of the Act, their attempts might be thwarted. 

Router66

Just had a holding response from my MP - replies can take up to 2 weeks, however there is a phone number for her secretary if urgent. I will leave it a week before I escalate. I asked if my Email could be forwarded to MP's that supported the Greg Knight Act...If you don't ask!!