Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021

patient_dream

Sorry folks, I am fully aware that there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes by those on here and other places but .... I think there is "cash for favours" going on with the other side. That is a serious allegation and the only way Mr Gove's dept can prove there is not,  is to accept Sir Greg Knight's bill is correct and NOT to listen to the parking industry where high profits are king

The MoJ needs to understand that the 6 year rule on claiming debts must only be for real debts that are proven.  Difficult to understand how the law of the UK and the MoJ even thinks that parking companies are ligitimate to waste the time of courts.

If Mr Gove and Mr O'Neil think that the parking industry has any credibility, god help the public throughtout the UK

95Rollers

Sadly I suspect you're right and am not too optimistic about any real positive change. With all the exposed government sleaze which is really nothing new. I am not naive enough to believe that the private parking industry/ unregulated debt recovery agents don't have MPs or Peers in their pockets!!!  Sad, but I have very little faith in our government to do the right thing. I do hope they prove me wrong- but I don't trust them. 

Fruitcake

I'm sure there will be some improvements once the new mandatory CoP is in force, but I too am not so naïve to believe that it is going to cure all ills. 
The parking industry duped our government before by allowing someone who was not even in the vehicle at the time of the alleged event to be liable for a parking charge from an unregulated company, and I truly believe some of the people involved in the consultation are yet again being duped.
MPs are quoting things like "industry standard," but it is as yet an unregulated industry where parking companies are still making up their own rules. It is also a multi-million pound unregulated industry. So what next? After the new CoP is introduced, the industry decides £70 isn't enough, so the "standard" becomes £100 for a year or two, then £120, and so on.

I do worry that the people and courts of Scotland are in for a nasty wake up call, no matter what the end result is going to be, and we are going to see an increasing number of cries for help from North of the Border next year. Well done Ms Sturgeon. Independence my hacienda.

We know that parking companies claim debt collection fees that they have not incurred, and we know that parking companies ignore things like the ADR regulations 2015 that states a second stage appeal must be allowed for up to a year, and we know that they ignore the Equality Act 2010 by refusing to accept any indicator of a disability other than a badge that does not even apply on private land, and we know they issue charges where they do not have landowner authority, but again, how do people like us, the average motorist, get to tell the people who will be making these decisions about our concerns?

Coupon-mad

I just see Government naivety here, but it is set to cause enormous harm and a £70 million per annum windfall for ParkingEye, as a by-product.

I can only imagine that someone asked asked the MoJ the question: "can traders add debt recovery fees, and are they recoverable?"

Totally failing to ask the right question:

"can traders add debt recovery fees they have never paid or incurred, and that were invented by the Industry and are set seven times the DRA industry standard for collecting simple UK Debts?"

Now, here's a starter for ten: which organisation considers concerns about alleged cartels, possible price fixing and breaches of the CRA 2015?

patient_dream

95Rollers said:

Sadly I suspect you're right and am not too optimistic about any real positive change. With all the exposed government sleaze which is really nothing new. I am not naive enough to believe that the private parking industry/ unregulated debt recovery agents don't have MPs or Peers in their pockets!!!  Sad, but I have very little faith in our government to do the right thing. I do hope they prove me wrong- but I don't trust them. 

Be optimistic.  With "Peppa pig" Boris who does more U Turns than a dual carriageway, and let's face it, Gove is only where he is for the moment because Boris is scared of him.

Boris sacked Jenrick as he was a failure and a "cash for favours" traitor.

But, Boris is not as stupid as he looks .....Gove is there for one reason and that is to level up.
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION and that includes the scam parking industry

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad said:

Now, here's a starter for ten: which organisation considers concerns about alleged cartels, possible price fixing and breaches of the CRA 2015?

I give in, which organisation considers concerns about alleged cartels, possible price fixing and breaches of the CRA 2015?

1505grandad

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)?

Coupon-mad

CMA and you can contact them direct but need evidence.  They say they can act quickly and also assist the Government to get things right, and they are the ones who wrote the CRA 2015 Guidance, including interpretations of terms that might work together, to to create a system of double recovery.

The CMA are not part of the Government.

It would need evidence, such as all the DRAs on the BPA Board and IPC 'people' (see their respective webpages) and the Transport Extra article that confirmed that both Trade Bodies 'joined forces' in 2021 to lobby together.

ZZPS (or is it DRPlus, who knows which Colin Arthur?) appearing to be on influential panels on both sides and having reportedly 'invented' this model to make more money, is arguably suggestive of an almost 'cartel-like' situation, with the DRA 'rivals' all adding the same sum = £70.

Price cap...or?

Evidence that they ALL add £70 would be useful.  Not a cap, then...

And the ZZPS lot used to run Roxburghe, a DRA whose licence renewal was refused by the OFT for being 'unfit'.

Huge concerns about the motives behind all this.

And then there's the 'before and after' IPC conference Exhibitors' adverts from IPC influential 'people' (see their website) DRP and Trace, which were edited to remove 'our service is free'.

And this was in the exact same week the IPC said the cost of debt recovery had 'gone up' despite knowing their AOS members don't pay a penny in a no win no fee arrangement.

And of course the IPC leaping to match the BPA's £70 'cap' came the same week that the DLUHC launched the Technical Consultation that the BPA's Parking News last month, said happened as a result of APA lobbying.

Timed perfectly, getting their £70 ducks in a row.  Government believed that £70 was 'industry standard'.  A phrase repeated by Government officials, I think in the Public Consultation and/or online seminar on 13th August.

Despite the fact that other comparable DRA 'industry standard' for simple UK small debts is 8-12% of money owed (see dentistry DRA adverts).

And then there are concerns that this will give ParkingEye a £70 million per annum windfall, and this is almost certainly not an exaggeration, given that PCN levels are back to 2019-20 levels according to an RAC article last month.

And surely allowing fees that the Government knows are NOT paid, and that will have the effect in multi-PCN cases of enhancing court claims and DRA demands by hundreds of (even a thousand or more) pounds for a SINGLE letter, must by any reasonable interpretation, breach the CRA 2015.

Could do worse than an urgent 'consumer concern' referral to the CMA with evidence and ask for them to contact the DLUHC because of concerns about possible (alleged) prices 'set' at a £70 add-on (seven times DRA norm for UK debts).  Maybe the CMA will view it as cartel-like workings with the same - and rival - DRA companies influencing the policy?

Even if the CMA are not minded to see it that way, there remain huge and urgent concerns that what was proposed in the Technical Consultation about putting £70 on signs (allowing recovery of KNOWN UNPAID 'fees') breaches the CRA 2015.

And the POFA, of course.

That's my take on it.

I think the wrong question was asked of the MoJ who assumed the DRA fees were actually paid.

patient_dream

The 4 stooges represented a cartel and that is illegal.

A cartel is when competitive companies .. the BPA and IPC working for their members, get together to price fix.

The cartel is price fixing charges and debt collector fees.

I'm sure Mr Gove and his levelling up department would not wish to approve a cartel

Mr Gove should be advised together with Boris and even Peppa pig ?

Coupon-mad

Anyone want to take some screenshots of the IPC 'people' and BPA board?  Look who is behind both.  Many of the main DRAs and roboclaim firms, plus ZZPS - whose director said in an article that he invented the illusory 'fees' - having a foot in both camps, going by the names there.