Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021

Umkomaas

I wonder if the ATAs have been given privileged access to the MHCLG, whether motorists' representatives have been offered the same beer and sandwiches access? 

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas said:

I wonder if the ATAs have been given privileged access to the MHCLG, whether motorists' representatives have been offered the same beer and sandwiches access? 

I doubt it but it could all stem from the lobbying the BPA have publicly stated they have been busily doing, approaching various areas of Government, I think they said. 

Certainly looks like they have been convincing someone that they can claim more than the law allows from keepers. 

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)).

onlyfoolsandparking

Well I gave my opinions on the consultation from my limited experience and I just said in very 'strong' terms that all private parking operators should run in line with how Local authorities charge and that they MUST have a truly independent type appeal as the one they currently have is nothing more than a scam. (hope I don't get a knock on the door from the boys in blue for hate speech 

Good luck everyone and thank you for keeping up the fight.

Coupon-mad

Very good.  More responses the better, or bookmark this and think about what you want to say, as I am doing.

Jenni_D

onlyfoolsandparking said:

Well I gave my opinions on the consultation from my limited experience and I just said in very 'strong' terms that all private parking operators should run in line with how Local authorities charge and that they MUST have a truly independent type appeal as the one they currently have is nothing more than a scam. (hope I don't get a knock on the door from the boys in blue for hate speech 

Good luck everyone and thank you for keeping up the fight.

I forgot to say that I made that point too ... I referenced that London Councils POPLA was the only fair appeals service there has been, that the following incarnations of POPLA were more biased to the industry, and that the IAS with their 4% of upheld appeals were clearly anti-consumer.

Snakes_Belly

onlyfoolsandparking said:

Well I gave my opinions on the consultation from my limited experience and I just said in very 'strong' terms that all private parking operators should run in line with how Local authorities charge and that they MUST have a truly independent type appeal as the one they currently have is nothing more than a scam. (hope I don't get a knock on the door from the boys in blue for hate speech 

Good luck everyone and thank you for keeping up the fight.

Glad to see you back for the consultation.

patient_dream

Letter sent to Rishi Sunak..  Here is a snippet

As you will know, the parking industry objected to a price cap and the charges made by debt collectors. Hence the current Technical consultation ?
The fear now for motorists who are also voters that the MHCLG will fall into the same trap as did the DFT in 2012 who mainly listened to the BPA.  The end result was the new code of practice

Can I ask you, what is the connection with MHCLG and the BPA (British Parking Association) ? It would appear that the millions of motorists who are also voters will continue to suffer simply because the BPA disagree with the code of practice and their only interest is to protect their members. They being the private parking industry.

Parking charges must be capped to be in line with Council Car Parks.  This is your opporunity to give desperate councils the authority to act as an ATA and collect monies from private parking companies within their area.

Snakes_Belly

patient_dream said:

Letter sent to Rishi Sunak..  Here is a snippet

As you will know, the parking industry objected to a price cap and the charges made by debt collectors. Hence the current Technical consultation ?
The fear now for motorists who are also voters that the MHCLG will fall into the same trap as did the DFT in 2012 who mainly listened to the BPA.  The end result was the new code of practice

Can I ask you, what is the connection with MHCLG and the BPA (British Parking Association) ? It would appear that the millions of motorists who are also voters will continue to suffer simply because the BPA disagree with the code of practice and their only interest is to protect their members. They being the private parking industry.

Parking charges must be capped to be in line with Council Car Parks.  This is your opporunity to give desperate councils the authority to act as an ATA and collect monies from private parking companies within their area.

There is also the question of VAT however is that likely to be passed on to the motorist?

Many of the directors of the PPC take huge dividend payments as well as a salary. The taxation on dividends is at a lower rate than income tax on PAYE. That is a big saving for someone like SRS and Curly.   

Tax band	Tax rate on dividends over the allowance
Basic rate	7.5%
Higher rate	32.5%
Additional rate	38.1%

patient_dream

Not forgetting the rates which all other local companies pay

Fruitcake

One of the main points I have made in response to the consultation is that the blue badge scheme does not apply on private land, and it is unfair, and possibly illegal/unlawful to issue a charge to a genuine disabled motorist who parks in an accessible bay simply because they don't have a blue badge.
It's discrimination and a breach of the EA 2010.
I said that a charge must be cancelled upon proof of a disability such as a letter from a medical professional, and that parking companies have had over ten years to come up with a method to allow disabled people to park in an accessible bay without getting an unfair parking charge, but have always refused to consider anything other than a blue badge even though it doesn't apply.

The BB scheme actually says the badge must not be used for anything other than the purpose for which it was issued. Since it is issued only for use on public roads and council off-street car parks, using it in a private car park could technically be considered abuse of the BB scheme.

The other point I made of course was about the fake debt collector fees. I quoted the Gary Osner's admission that he had made it up to make more money, and I included a link to the Parkmavern article.

I'm going to write to my MP about both these points as well, and ask him to bring it up in parliament.

My relative who got a charge at Bristol Airport is going to contact his MP, who has said she is familiar with the parking bill, and my carer friend who I helped get a charge cancelled last year is going to do the same.
Both have already completed the consultation.

I've got a couple of disabled relatives who are going to do the same as well.