JLA "Stopping" Charge

Router66

Thank you for your suggestion Coupon-Mad...
My son wrote to his MP on August 25th to explain his concerns over parking operators being allowed to levy additional fees, provided the intention to do so was clearly stated in any terms and conditions. He received a response from DLUHC which  confirmed their intention to allow parking operators to levy additional fees if this is made clear in any terms and conditions.
The new code would also prohibit the use of misleading and intimidatory language by parking operators and debt recovery agencies and operators will also be required to provide information to motorists on where they can find free debt counselling or legal advice. It was suggested that these measures taken together will mean fewer motorists will receive unfair parking charges. 
Should my son respond to his MP or to DLUHC?

Redx

I would reply to the dluhc and copy in your local MP , because your point of contact is your local MP , regardless !

I don't understand why there should be a choice , why you think it's one or the other ?

Surely if you are in doubt , do both !!

Coupon-mad

He received a response from DLUHC which  confirmed their intention to allow parking operators to levy additional fees if this is made clear in any terms and conditions.

And that us a thousand times worse than the current situation.  It is worse than if they'd set the core PCN level at £130.

It is atrocious and has caused so much anger, even the RAC tweeted about it.  This means a PPC could add MULTIPLES of £70 (per PCN) for one chaser letter that's already in the letter chain covered by the cost if the PCN itself.

e.g.one letter about five PCNs = £350 added for that single letter. The PPCs are having a laugh.

It is also estimated it will give ParkingEye up to an extra £70 MILLION per annum.

And of course it doesn't take a PPC expert to see it would incentivise PPCs to refuse appeals to 'pass go and collect £200'.

It's also unlawful (POFA) and against the whole vision of the Knight Act.  Utterly appalling,

Everyone should be up in arms.  I will be telling my MP not to agree in Parliament to any Code of Practice from the Secretary of State, that allows this ludicrous add-on.

Le_Kirk

I have written again to my MP and asked him to make sure that Mr Gove is aware of this issue.

Router66

Redx said:

I would reply to the dluhc and copy in your local MP , because your point of contact is your local MP , regardless !

I don't understand why there should be a choice , why you think it's one or the other ?

Surely if you are in doubt , do both !!

If my son's point of contact is his MP then I would have thought it better to write to him and copy the DLUHC, but in response to your question I wasn't sure, which is why I asked.  

Redx

Router66 said:

Redx said:

I would reply to the dluhc and copy in your local MP , because your point of contact is your local MP , regardless !

I don't understand why there should be a choice , why you think it's one or the other ?

Surely if you are in doubt , do both !!

If my son's point of contact is his MP then I would have thought it better to write to him and copy the DLUHC, but in response to your question I wasn't sure, which is why I asked.  

Then do that then , but my point is that it goes to both , how you arrange the addresses is your choice , but it was never one OR the other

Coupon-mad

Not sure how you can just copy in the DLUHC and I feel that would have less clout and be ignored even if you could find an email.  That's not the best way for constituents to be heard.  Go via the MP.

Router66

I have the Email address of the DLUHC MP that confirmed the new Code would (conditionally) allow parking operators to level additional fees.  This confirmation was sent to my son's MP, who then passed it on to my son. Agree that contacting my son's MP is more appropriate, perhaps with an attached letter to the DLUHC MP, in response to the measures he has outlined for reducing the number of unfair parking charges issued to motorists. 

Coupon-mad

Was that Luke Hall? He's gone.  If not, who?  Please show us that email but minus the email address as it wouldn't be right to post that.

The DLUHC have this completely and utterly wrong and need to hear it.

Router66

No, not Luke Hall...Neil O'Brien. The correspondence is in the form of letter from Neil, sent to Sir Graham Brady which has been scanned as a PDF and forwarded to my son. If there is way to send you the scanned PDF I would be happy to do so