Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021

Snakes_Belly

Six years is too long for this type of claim to be outstanding. 

They know how to claim so why not just either put up or shut up.

patient_dream

I really think it will not be too long before a PPI style reclaim starts

1: Debt Collectors who people have paid the fake £60/£70
2: Legals who people have paid before court
3: Those legals who have won the fake amounts in court

Snakes_Belly

patient_dream said:

I really think it will not be too long before a PPI style reclaim starts

1: Debt Collectors who people have paid the fake £60/£70
2: Legals who people have paid before court
3: Those legals who have won the fake amounts in court

I think that there could be similar situation to PPI. In fact this is worse than PPI because PPI was a good product for the right person. It's how it was sold that was the issue as it was sold to people who were not suitable for the product.

I don't quite get how all these clingons fit in. There seems to be an overlap. Are BW Legal involved in the debt collection process or do they come in at the court stage? So many clingons after a piece of the action. It's like something out of Star Trek (Klingons on the starboard bow)

patient_dream

Snakes_Belly said:

patient_dream said:

I really think it will not be too long before a PPI style reclaim starts

1: Debt Collectors who people have paid the fake £60/£70
2: Legals who people have paid before court
3: Those legals who have won the fake amounts in court

I think that there could be similar situation to PPI. In fact this is worse than PPI because PPI was a good product for the right person. It's how it was sold that was the issue as it was sold to people who were not suitable for the product.

I don't quite get how all these clingons fit in. There seems to be an overlap. Are BW Legal involved in the debt collection process or do they come in at the court stage? So many clingons after a piece of the action. It's like something out of Star Trek (Klingons on the starboard bow)

Once the debt collector passes it back to the PPC, the fake amount is passed back even though there is a "no win, no fee" service.  The PPC knows this but still instructs a legal to sue for £160. Unlike PPI where they used trickery, what the PPC's do is fraud

Snakes_Belly

"Once the debt collector passes it back to the PPC, the fake amount is passed back even though there is a "no win, no fee" service.  The PPC knows this but still instructs a legal to sue for £160. Unlike PPI where they used trickery, what the PPC's do is fraud"

BW Legal are involved in debt collection but it must be after the court stage as they are regulated. They would or should not be able to collect disputed debts. 

If the debt collection agents like DRP and other bottom feeders were regulated by the FCA they would not be able to collect disputed debts. They would have to refer them back to the PPC. 

There is going to be some type of regulation. I really hope that it follows the same guidelines as the FCA. I would prefer it to be the FCA and I made this clear in the consultation.

PPI was missold to the wrong customers. It was driven by people having to achieve targets. A bit like the poor saps that work for the PPC's 

MothballsWallet

I've received an initial reply from my MP: she's said that she'll send me a full reply in due course as her office is on fewer staff due to COVID.

patient_dream

MothballsWallet said:

I've received an initial reply from my MP: she's said that she'll send me a full reply in due course as her office is on fewer staff due to COVID.

The replies are going to be interesting

paul9619

Just a thought. Has anyone raised this to Martin Lewis himself? He has good credibility with the government and it might even appear on the show. 

I know he sold this site but might be worth a punt by someone who knows the backstory in way more detail than me. 

patient_dream

paul9619 said:

Just a thought. Has anyone raised this to Martin Lewis himself? He has good credibility with the government and it might even appear on the show. 

I know he sold this site but might be worth a punt by someone who knows the backstory in way more detail than me. 

Someone like Martin is needed. There must be good reason. With PPI it was mainly mis selling and the automatic adding on of the insurance.
With the fake £60 it is totally against the Supreme Couirt and the automatic add-on preached by the BPA and IPC within their codes of practice which carried no legal authority.

Of course with the banks, they had deep pockets. In the parking industry it would bankrupt many companies. If would be up to the operator/debt collector to take this up with their ATA who misled them in the first place

D_P_Dance

WRT to that fake £60 have to read this?  Have you complained to tour MP?

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0