Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021

D_P_Dance

Indeed, one company has signs,  (contracts), extending to over 700 words, who reads them?

Le_Kirk

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 £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

But the "admin" costs or "whatever-we-call-it-this-week" costs are already included as part of the cost of running a business and we include that in every defence, this is why ParkingEye lost the Somerfield case and we always include clause 419 in the standard defence template: -

419. It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time

specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment.

Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/e1ece9988ce281a5154163aecbf09e49?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Umkomaas

Snakes_Belly said:

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.    

I think a very valid point and should be squeezed into the consultation response. 

A PCN can lead to terrible financial damage, especially to a new driver, the majority being young and who will be particularly hampered in obtaining credit, a first mortgage - as many will want relatively soon after passing their test, some employment opportunities and perhaps most important (😄), a mobile phone contract! 

Cardriver45

I filled it in and added a lot of points made on here. I explained my case and thay the doscount should last until after the appeals and included what was said on here about the added charges

Umkomaas

Cardriver45 said:

I filled it in and added a lot of points made on here. I explained my case and thay the doscount should last until after the appeals and included what was said on here about the added charges

Great stuff, especially the MHCLG getting feedback from someone who has been personally harmed by these leeches. Most regulars have never come anywhere near their clutches (we know the landscape) and while we can contribute at a strategic level, it's not the same as getting information from someone who has been through the mill at the hands of out of control PPCs. 

Thank you. 

Snakes_Belly

Cardriver45 said:

I filled it in and added a lot of points made on here. I explained my case and thay the doscount should last until after the appeals and included what was said on here about the added charges

Definitely the discount should last until after both appeals. In fact the first appeal is totally pointless. I think that I included that in my comments.

 

Snakes_Belly

Umkomaas said:

Snakes_Belly said:

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.    

I think a very valid point and should be squeezed into the consultation response. 

A PCN can lead to terrible financial damage, especially to a new driver, the majority being young and who will be particularly hampered in obtaining credit, a first mortgage - as many will want relatively soon after passing their test, some employment opportunities and perhaps most important (😄), a mobile phone contract! 

The fact that many younger people are transient also does not help. Certain types of employment will not take people on with a CCJ particularly the financial services industry. 

ParkingMad

The MHCLG did say that the debt recovery fee only applies to undisputed debts, when the motorist hasn't appealed at all. 

Undisputed debts only
If there is a genuine dispute as to whether the customer owes the invoice amount, then you will be unable to add further charges until the dispute has been resolved and the amount owed clarified. Therefore, it is always better to enter a dialogue with customers as early as possible as to why they are disputing the debt and haven't paid.

The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 says that a business can claim reasonable costs of collecting the debt if they are more than the late payment compensation amount of £40 (for an invoice of up to £1000). 

But this Act only applies to a commercial contract (B2B) between two businesses, not to a consumer contract (B2C) between a PPC and a motorist.

https://www.catalystlaw.co.uk/blog/claiming-interest-on-unpaid-invoices

Thanks to C-m for this info. 

Fruitcake

The problem with undisputed debts is that if the motorist has moved or knows nothing about the PCN for another reason, then they will not have had the opportunity to dispute the add-ons.

Do we think PPCs will state on their signs that failing to appeal/dispute the charge will result in an additional £70 being added, but not otherwise?

Porcine Airways tells me their aircraft are at the end of the runway ready for take-off.

Snakes_Belly

ParkingMad said:

The MHCLG did say that the debt recovery fee only applies to undisputed debts, when the motorist hasn't appealed at all. 

Undisputed debts only
If there is a genuine dispute as to whether the customer owes the invoice amount, then you will be unable to add further charges until the dispute has been resolved and the amount owed clarified. Therefore, it is always better to enter a dialogue with customers as early as possible as to why they are disputing the debt and haven't paid.

The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 says that a business can claim reasonable costs of collecting the debt if they are more than the late payment compensation amount of £40 (for an invoice of up to £1000). 

But this Act only applies to a commercial contract (B2B) between two businesses, not to a consumer contract (B2C) between a PPC and a motorist.

https://www.catalystlaw.co.uk/blog/claiming-interest-on-unpaid-invoices

I cannot see any point in going through that protracted debt collection process when a claim is disputed. 

I told Excel at the outset that I disputed the debt and I would not engage with debt collectors.