Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021

Snakes_Belly

Umkomaas said:

For those wishing to reference the fact that there is no charge made to parking operators for debt collection whatsoever, you might find the following scans, which have now been removed from the IPC website, useful as part of responses to the Technical Consultation. 

It's beginning to look a lot like a PPI .  It's the reverse of Robin Hood. Robbing the poor to make the rich even richer. 

This is coming from a person who very much believes in wealth creation but not by ripping people off. 

Umkomaas

Umkomaas said:

For those wishing to reference the fact that there is no charge made to parking operators for debt collection whatsoever, you might find the following scans, which have now been removed from the IPC website, useful as part of responses to the Technical Consultation. 

Well, guess what?  Since the announcement of the Technical Consultation, we have a subtle change in words from DRP and Trace - or not so subtle - they've removed reference to 'no win/collection, no fee'. Use the shifty-feet nature of this debt recovery sector in any responses to the Consultation. I wonder who has orchestrated the dodging of exposure to the MHCLG?

Snakes_Belly

Umkomaas said:

Umkomaas said:

For those wishing to reference the fact that there is no charge made to parking operators for debt collection whatsoever, you might find the following scans, which have now been removed from the IPC website, useful as part of responses to the Technical Consultation. 

Well, guess what?  Since the announcement of the Technical Consultation, we have a subtle change in words from DRP and Trace - or not so subtle - they've removed reference to 'no win/collection, no fee'. Use the shifty-feet nature of this debt recovery sector in any responses to the Consultation. I wonder who has orchestrated the dodging of exposure to the MHCLG?

Good job that you saved those then. This is really such a grubby business with no value to society whatsover. 

Fruitcake

We are being watched. Imagine my surprise.

Umkomaas

Further ammo for responding on the £70 debt recovery fee the MHCLG are trying to lever in. Even at corporate level the maximum charge for late payment is £40 for any debt up to £999.99 and is enshrined in legislation. 

How can they impose £70 for a £100 'debt' on individuals?  

The MHCLG are also making the statement that the £70 becomes part of the deterrent - so this must surely start to offend against the penalty rule, penalties that no private entity can impose.

They're making a real mess of this in an attempt to assuage the PPC network. 

https://www.gov.uk/late-commercial-payments-interest-debt-recovery/claim-debt-recovery-costs

Castle

Umkomaas said:

Further ammo for responding on the £70 debt recovery fee the MHCLG are trying to lever in. Even at corporate level the maximum charge for late payment is £40 for any debt up to £9,999 and is enshrined in legislation. 

How can they impose £70 for a £100 'debt' on individuals?  

The MHCLG are also making the statement that the £70 becomes part of the deterrent - so this must surely start to offend against the penalty rule, penalties that no private entity can impose.

They're making a real mess of this in an attempt to assuage the PPC network. 

https://www.gov.uk/late-commercial-payments-interest-debt-recovery/claim-debt-recovery-costs

It's £40 up to £999.99 and then £70 from £1,000 up to £9,999.99

Umkomaas

Castle said:

Umkomaas said:

Further ammo for responding on the £70 debt recovery fee the MHCLG are trying to lever in. Even at corporate level the maximum charge for late payment is £40 for any debt up to £9,999 and is enshrined in legislation. 

How can they impose £70 for a £100 'debt' on individuals?  

The MHCLG are also making the statement that the £70 becomes part of the deterrent - so this must surely start to offend against the penalty rule, penalties that no private entity can impose.

They're making a real mess of this in an attempt to assuage the PPC network. 

https://www.gov.uk/late-commercial-payments-interest-debt-recovery/claim-debt-recovery-costs

It's £40 up to £999.99 and then £70 from £1,000 up to £9,999.99

Reading and typing without my glasses 👓. Thanks @Castle - duly edited. 

patient_dream

Umkomaas said:

How can they impose £70 for a £100 'debt' on individuals?  

The MHCLG are also making the statement that the £70 becomes part of the deterrent - so this must surely start to offend against the penalty rule, penalties that no private entity can impose.

They're making a real mess of this in an attempt to assuage the PPC network. 

https://www.gov.uk/late-commercial-payments-interest-debt-recovery/claim-debt-recovery-costs

YES, that would be a penalty and against the Supreme Court.

It would be futile if the MHCLG thought it would be a deterrent ? 

 

Snakes_Belly

As a matter of interest they are apparently talking to the various interested parties. Who is respresenting motorists who have fallen foul of the PPC's? These are the people who would have initially written to their MP's. Who represents their interests?    

Snakes_Belly

Deterrent and private parking companies are not words that can be used in the same sentence. Most people would not fall foul if they were aware of the deterrent. It's not in the PPC's interests though to make people aware.

Perhaps there is a case for it being part of the driving test online exam.