Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021

patient_dream

Snakes_Belly said:

I am very undecided about the type of regulation for the debt collection agents. As we know they are not regulated at present. I would like to see them regulated by the FCA but the consulation suggest another regulator. If that happens it must mirror the FCA in terms of regulation.

Hopefully the need for debt collection will be greatly diminished when the new CoP and Single Tier Appeals Service is introduced.

What do others think?
 

Strict regulation is requied to bring them under control with the powers to strike them off and fined

Snakes_Belly

patient_dream said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I am very undecided about the type of regulation for the debt collection agents. As we know they are not regulated at present. I would like to see them regulated by the FCA but the consulation suggest another regulator. If that happens it must mirror the FCA in terms of regulation.

Hopefully the need for debt collection will be greatly diminished when the new CoP and Single Tier Appeals Service is introduced.

What do others think?
 

Strict regulation is required to bring them under control with the powers to strike them off and fined

Financial Ombudsman schemes will allow so many free complaints and then it's around £500.00 per complaint. If they were regulated by the FCA they would have to be part of this.  

Castle

Snakes_Belly said:

patient_dream said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I am very undecided about the type of regulation for the debt collection agents. As we know they are not regulated at present. I would like to see them regulated by the FCA but the consulation suggest another regulator. If that happens it must mirror the FCA in terms of regulation.

Hopefully the need for debt collection will be greatly diminished when the new CoP and Single Tier Appeals Service is introduced.

What do others think?
 

Strict regulation is required to bring them under control with the powers to strike them off and fined

Financial Ombudsman schemes will allow so many free complaints and then it's around £500.00 per complaint. If they were regulated by the FCA they would have to be part of this.  

At the moment it's £750 per case after the first 25; which is why I can't see this happening because the "debt" collector won't be able to reclaim it from either the PPC or the motorist:-
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/case-fees

MothballsWallet

From reading other threads, what are other posters' thoughts on the PPCs who submit heavily-redacted landowner contracts at WS stage in a court claim?

My own thoughts are that they should have to produce the fully-unredacted version to the Single Tier Appeals Service or the judge in court as the redactions could give them an unfair advantage as they could be hiding something that would be useful for the defendant to know.

D_P_Dance

My thoughts are that it renders the contract inadmissable.  

Snakes_Belly

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

patient_dream said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I am very undecided about the type of regulation for the debt collection agents. As we know they are not regulated at present. I would like to see them regulated by the FCA but the consulation suggest another regulator. If that happens it must mirror the FCA in terms of regulation.

Hopefully the need for debt collection will be greatly diminished when the new CoP and Single Tier Appeals Service is introduced.

What do others think?
 

Strict regulation is required to bring them under control with the powers to strike them off and fined

Financial Ombudsman schemes will allow so many free complaints and then it's around £500.00 per complaint. If they were regulated by the FCA they would have to be part of this.  

At the moment it's £750 per case after the first 25; which is why I can't see this happening because the "debt" collector won't be able to reclaim it from either the PPC or the motorist:-
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/case-fees

There has to be a independent body whereby people can complain. That is part of the regulation. I did not realise that it was £750.00. 

I think that BW legal are registered with the FCA.

Snakes_Belly

MothballsWallet said:

From reading other threads, what are other posters' thoughts on the PPCs who submit heavily-redacted landowner contracts at WS stage in a court claim?

My own thoughts are that they should have to produce the fully-unredacted version to the Single Tier Appeals Service or the judge in court as the redactions could give them an unfair advantage as they could be hiding something that would be useful for the defendant to know.

I agree. We certainly should not be seeing the cobbled up documents that form part of the witness statements.

Fruitcake

MothballsWallet said:

From reading other threads, what are other posters' thoughts on the PPCs who submit heavily-redacted landowner contracts at WS stage in a court claim?

My own thoughts are that they should have to produce the fully-unredacted version to the Single Tier Appeals Service or the judge in court as the redactions could give them an unfair advantage as they could be hiding something that would be useful for the defendant to know.

I think in certain circumstances it is acceptable to redact financially sensitive information, but nothing else. However, even then it is debatable. How much a landowner gets paid per PCN might be commercially sensitive, but it also might show that there is a financial incentive for the landowner to allow the PPC to have free reign.

Quite often the contract is not with the landowner but with an agent. In my opinion the contract should be with or flowing from the landowner. If the contract is with an agent, then the contract between the landowner and agent (or at the very least the part of the contract authorising the agent to employ a PPC) must also be shown.

The identity of the landowner must always be given, ideally on the signs which is where a parking contract is formed, but certainly on the NTD/NTK.

I agree that the unredacted contract should be produced at the independent appeals stage as this might stop a PCN in its tracks and/or prevent it going to court.

Valid contracts must comply with either Section 43 or 44 of the Companies Act 2006. The (legible) names, position within their company, signatures, and date of signing must all be present and unredacted.

I agree with Mr Dance that redacting the above is inadmissible and should result in an immediate cancellation and penalties against the PPC.

The only problem I have is working out where to make these comments in the current consultation about fees. It should however go in complaints to MPs and the MHCLG.

MothballsWallet

Fruitcake said:

MothballsWallet said:

From reading other threads, what are other posters' thoughts on the PPCs who submit heavily-redacted landowner contracts at WS stage in a court claim?

My own thoughts are that they should have to produce the fully-unredacted version to the Single Tier Appeals Service or the judge in court as the redactions could give them an unfair advantage as they could be hiding something that would be useful for the defendant to know.

I think in certain circumstances it is acceptable to redact financially sensitive information, but nothing else. However, even then it is debatable. How much a landowner gets paid per PCN might be commercially sensitive, but it also might show that there is a financial incentive for the landowner to allow the PPC to have free reign.

Quite often the contract is not with the landowner but with an agent. In my opinion the contract should be with or flowing from the landowner. If the contract is with an agent, then the contract between the landowner and agent (or at the very least the part of the contract authorising the agent to employ a PPC) must also be shown.

The identity of the landowner must always be given, ideally on the signs which is where a parking contract is formed, but certainly on the NTD/NTK.

I agree that the unredacted contract should be produced at the independent appeals stage as this might stop a PCN in its tracks and/or prevent it going to court.

Valid contracts must comply with either Section 43 or 44 of the Companies Act 2006. The (legible) names, position within their company, signatures, and date of signing must all be present and unredacted.

I agree with Mr Dance that redacting the above is inadmissible and should result in an immediate cancellation and penalties against the PPC.

The only problem I have is working out where to make these comments in the current consultation about fees. It should however go in complaints to MPs and the MHCLG.

Although the full contract should have to be provided to the judge or the appeals service adjudicator, imo.

Snakes_Belly

In the new consultation there is mention of a regulatory body that will regulate the activities of the debt collection agents. I would prefer it to be the FCA however there is mention of the care that must be taken when dealing with vulnerable people. This is something that does not happen at the moment with unregulated companies.

The list of what constitutes a vulnerable person is quite comprehensive. Under the FCA rules you cannot start the debt collection process without first checking whether the recipient of the correspondence/contact is vulnerable. Then they would have to act at a higher level of care. 


"The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) defines a vulnerable person as "someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to detriment, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care". The FCA's definition highlights that vulnerability can be due to a range of personal circumstances, ranging from physical or mental health problems to life-events which can affect an individual's life significantly. Moreover, the FCA highlight that financial services firms are responsible for implementing safeguards and procedures to protect vulnerable persons from exploitation and neglect. Therefore, knowing how to identify vulnerable consumers is important."