Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

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.

If the MHCLG have made up their mind, the tech consultation would just be a charade.
Is it not more like that Parking News is marketing propaganda

Coupon-mad

We have to presume and trust in all good faith that they have not made up their mind, and if they have we’d have to lobby our MPs to refuse to accept the Code of Practice and Framework. The Secretary of State has to bring it to Parliament and get it through, and if there is a shocker in it like the ludicrous proposal to fund the race to court at £70 a pop, our MPs must be told about that by us, and insist on its removal or modification.

Remember that, in the last consultation, the MHCLG presented the ‘2 level’ parking charge model as an afterthought, having prominently first shown 3 levels that were not only extortionate but would never have fitted on any brief and clear sign.

...but...but...they agreed with the better responses and adopted  the 2 level model.  So, these Consultations can be won and lost on submissions and it shows they do listen.

Did you know that is what happened? The 2 levels were very obviously an afterthought and not the way the MHCLG was thinking. But people and motoring groups changed their minds.  We will try the same again.

PLEASE DO THIS IF YOU WANT CONSUMER VOICES TO OUTWEIGH THE PARKING INDUSTRY’S GREED. WHICH SEES THEM TRY TO CLAIM MORE THAN THE LAW ALLOWS, FROM A REGISTERED KEEPER,

I just looked at the POFA Explanatory Notes (part of the legislation):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/notes/division/5/1/3/3

221.Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied. The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle (paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).

patient_dream

It's not just MP's, it is the public and the media and in particular social media that is going to be the answer

The problem is and the question is .. how many of the public have any idea about the consultation .. very few and they need to be told. This forum whilst big, is not big enough to get to 1000's of people

In my view MHCLG needs to be very careful as one bad mistake and they answer to the voters who are the masters and far bigger than the parking industry

Coupon-mad

Thinking a bit more about the MHCLG’s desire to reduce CCJs, they need to take on board the reasons that parking cases go to court. I can think of 3 scenarios only: 

1. The victim doesn’t agree with the kangaroo court ‘appeal’ (or hasn’t tried it) and would rather fight it in court;

2.  The victim doesn’t believe it will go to court and buries their head in the sand, having been told by an idiot on Facebook to ignore the letters completely;

3. The victim is unaware of the PCN due to (usually) it going to an old address, thanks to the DVLA’s unreliable address databases.  Or because the PPC has waited 4 or 5 years then scraped the barrel to take old cases to court and the person might have known about a PCN at the time but has long since moved.


And in cases not involving ParkingEye, we already see £60 and £70 added on.

How exactly does the MHCLG think that cementing in stone the unrecoverable false costs (that the PPC has never expended) will change anything for any of those 3 types of victim, EXCEPT to cause the unintended (but flipping obvious) consequence that PPCs and the likes of Gladstones will have an absolute field day with taking old and new cases to court, waving the new law and getting even more CCJs, ALL AT AN EVEN MORE ENHANCED SUM OF MONEY THAN THEY DO NOW.

This is an abject disaster.

patient_dream

It's not a disaster, this is assuming. We must approach Sir Greg as this is his baby and probably Pete Wishart in Scotland.  Sir Greg as a Knight of the Realm will have more contacts in the house and the house of lords than any MP 

Jenni_D

Coupon-mad said:

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.

They do say that doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. 🙄

patient_dream

patient_dream said:

It's not a disaster, this is assuming. We must approach Sir Greg as this is his baby and probably Pete Wishart in Scotland.  Sir Greg as a Knight of the Realm will have more contacts in the house and the house of lords than any MP 

As said above, today I am writing to Sir Greg and Pete Wishart as they must know the fears of motorists and voters

Umkomaas

I can see that on day 29 after the issue of the NtK, DRP (or any other debt crawler) will be slapping in a demand, with £70 added, thereby cementing the PCN at (a minimum of) £120. 

They won't be missing that opportunity!

Fruitcake

I seem to recall someone from a parking company admitted to making up the debt recovery charges. Does anyone happen to know the details as this should be quoted in the response to the consultation, and to our MPs?

Umkomaas

Fruitcake said:

I seem to recall someone from a parking company admitted to making up the debt recovery charges. Does anyone happen to know the details as this should be quoted in the response to the consultation, and to our MPs?

Do you mean this?

https://parkmaven.com/news/gary-osner-zzps-interview