Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021

Le_Kirk

Read some of the threads on the parking sub-forum and see the antics that the parking companies get up to, the problems faced by the posters and the advice and information given by the regulars.  Then make up your mind about the best way to run a truly independent appeal service.  Answer the questions on the consultation as if you were one of the posters who has been chased by a parking company for years, those that have had their lives blighted, those who have ended up with a CCJ because the parking companies get up to all sorts of tricks to ensure the court system is misused.  Decide what level of monetary penalty would deter you from incorrect parking, would allow the parking companies to run a business - with a profit but not profiteering!

Humdinger1

@Le_Kirk thanks will do.  Am glued to the forum anyway, lost in admiration at the fantastic work you do; unpaid, all to keep these cowardly bullies in check.  "For evil to triumph, it's only necessary for good men to do nothing"

patient_dream

Le_Kirk said:

Read some of the threads on the parking sub-forum and see the antics that the parking companies get up to, the problems faced by the posters and the advice and information given by the regulars.  Then make up your mind about the best way to run a truly independent appeal service.  Answer the questions on the consultation as if you were one of the posters who has been chased by a parking company for years, those that have had their lives blighted, those who have ended up with a CCJ because the parking companies get up to all sorts of tricks to ensure the court system is misused.  Decide what level of monetary penalty would deter you from incorrect parking, would allow the parking companies to run a business - with a profit but not profiteering!

100% agree

Coupon-mad

I think diarise it, think about it all and wait a week or two and see what we all start to suggest are the main issues. 

Behind the scenes off forum there are discussions between some posters and other ex posters.

There is so much to be said, not least that this would put consumers in a worse position that business>business contracts that cap Late Payment fees at £40 (and is silent about any late payment fees against consumers).

To allow this is irrational and nothing at all to do with a parking sign deterrent model.  Pre-court these are not debts and more often than not people want to contest them, as is their right.

If this industry is given the right to add a 'pay us or else' extra level that is higher than business>business contracts allow, where on  earth will it end?  No other trader can do this for an alleged debt under contract.

Or is it just the parking industry being given this special treatment?

The so called safeguards already exist (these parasite firms are already APA members) and the entire section on ‘debt recovery’ is clearly written in BPA-speak (in my experience). 

Completely out of line with delivering the intentions of the Knight Act, this horrific policy supports BPA and IPC Member interests and throws consumers in the dirt without even the ability to contest the false added costs in court.

The very fact that it would hand multi millions to ParkingEye (an extra £70 for about a million cases per annum that are not appealed, paid or cancelled) and basically copies the model used by ex clampers who routinely get these false costs dismissed in court for unfairness and lack of justification, surely can’t have escaped Ministers’ attention? SURELY? 

patient_dream

It could be that Sir Greg does not know that his bill is being trashed

There is a video on youtube that will help

hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r9Yqe2Phuc

change the xx to tt .. is someone could make it live

1505grandad

Perhaps BPA/GO have been using their charm with the relevant entities:-

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/409/22/

"Getting the best result for our members"

Also, not confident that due diligence is being applied for this consultation. When referring to CCJ  (para 31)  - they include a middle "e" in Judgment. A Google search would have given the correct spelling associated with CCJ.

Coupon-mad

Is it only us who recognise the flipping obvious, that it is the added £60 or £70 that carries and positively drives so many cases to court?

What exactly are they thinking?  I suppose the lobbying has worked like it did in 2011/12 and the BPA and friends have told the Government that this proposal will protect consumers from CCJs and reduce the number of court claims. 

Like in 2012, it’s the same untruth and the opposite is true.  My God, it is obvious if you just think about who the £60/£70 funds!

I never thought the MHCLG would fall for the same misleading crap as the DFT did in 2012, given they know what happened then and the outcome.

Hopefully there is method in this madness.

Umkomaas

The other issue that I think needs to be exposed is the nature of 'forbidding signs' (which cannot be contractual) and the engagement of the penalty rule. Private companies cannot impose penalties. Add to that, that debt recovery charges are to become part of the deterrent also potentially brings further penalties into play. 

This needs to be fully examined by the MHCLG and their lawyers. 

I wonder if Sir Greg is appraised of this possible emasculation of his Act?

SuperHung

There is a simple solution. Stop DVLA from providing our number plate details or increase DVLA searches until this scam is no longer profitable.

Coupon-mad

And we must not be distracted from the rest of the Consultation such as the fact the Government plan to allow massive £100 charges against staff and residents and have proposed no safeguards whatsoever, not even fluid, retrospective white lists to protect those victims.

Residents tend to get multiple tickets. Even the awful propaganda IAS Report this past year admits that as if it’s a bad thing by the victims!

And let’s not forget the Judge Rinder Show Trial orchestrated by an IPC member ex-clamper firm, where an innocent new staff member kept putting notes on her dashboard and begging her boss to help, yet she got 37 PCNs at £100 a pop.

Then the PPC added £60 on top of all of them and threatened her with court then offered her a get out of jail free card on TV. And Judge Rinder showed he’d never heard of the CRA 2015 or his duty to consider fairness of terms and signs,  whether a party mentions the CRA or not. He cluelessly allowed all the PCNs and all the add ons, despite the £60 not being on the sign Rinder actually looked at, and gave no consideration to fairness despite knowing that the permit was delayed by the Claimant PPC all along.

Staff and residential car parks need safeguards and NOT poxy paper permits at the whim of the PPC.  They also need retrospective cancellation in full, to positively encourage PPCs to use a system that proactively prevents such PCNs in the first place.

Ticketers MUST also put PCNs on windscreens not blinking well lurk in cars or bushes at 2am.  That’s another safeguard for residents that must be required.

...and people/companies who are briefly delivering stuff or moving furniture in and out, MUST BE EXEMPT.

if those three things were in place then £100 for actual trespassers bilking at residential estates could be acceptable but only with those caveats and protections and not putting the burden on the consumer to display a yellow permit one year and suddenly change to a blue one from the next Christmas Eve, etc.