Select Committee oral evidence today re the Parking (Code of Practice) Act

Coupon-mad

IMHO that was terrible.  Just watched it via the below link and the statistics being bandied around beggared belief:.  

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2d2a2a1e-7680-464e-9c61-5fc9a2eb56a1

So apparently 34% of PCNs are for not paying (a fee). Really?  Really? 

Despite 90% of IPC firm car parks being permit or no parking/stopping and maybe as many as 80% of BPA car parks being free for a time period?  How do we get to such a huge figure for non payment of a tariff then?  We almost never see cases about that.  

I'd like to see that evidence.  I think the 34% statistic is how many go unappealed and unpaid (parking charges, not fees).

95Rollers

Woefully disappointing 😞

nicestrawb

Will check this out tomorrow...

Umkomaas

Four extremely long noses in that first session!  No one challenged PE on the figures they were throwing around - just awful!

Still watching, part 2 just commencing.

nicestrawb

I think part 1 was to be expected (haven't seen it all yet) but part 2 will be the interesting part...

patient_dream

THE FOUR MONEY STOOGES FROM ....

Debt Recovery Plus
The IPC
The BPA
Parking Eye

Debt Recovery Plus
Very poor representation whose only interest was to offer payment plans to motorists which he mentioned twice. Clearly DRP are not capable of selling ice to eskimos and they should still be ignored

The IPC
Hurley ... appeared to support the new code of practice but waffled figures and percentages with no apparent proof. 

The BPA
Pester .... also quoted figures and pecentages that were well off the scale as we have already seen from the BPA

Parking Eye
Boynes .... the same pattern as the IPC/BPA .. it was like listening to a copy and paste from the IPC and BPA

Will the select committee believe a word or will they allow government to be duped again as they were with POFA 2012

CONCLUSION:-
All four were simply selling MONEY 

PART TWO

The AA and the RAC foundation are of course on the side of the motorist and they told a different story which was factual and not fabrication

D_P_Dance

From what I have seen of select committes they are not fools.  They made Boris squirm yesterday.

nicestrawb

Just done part 1. Was very high level but letting them talk was the right approach. They made some coherent if highly debatable points using some good old traditional policical style statistics, right up until the very end when they talked about abuse of the court system and suggested that CCJs are used sparingly and ony for peristent offenders or people who ignore them. That's simply rubbish.
DP Dance is right though. It's essentially a business for profit, they're there for a reason, and the select committee are well aware of that.

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

From what I have seen of select committes they are not fools.  They made Boris squirm yesterday.

I didn't hear one MP ask anything of a penetrative nature.  There was ample opportunity to surgically question the wild statistics thrown out by PE. How can they link footfall with the amount of discount?  The greater the discount, the lower the footfall - really?  Many councils since the pandemic are offering free parking after 11am and footfall has increased significantly. 

At 10:51 one MP said that she'd like to ask her first question to 'Steve Clark'.  I don't share any optimism that the MPs sussed the charade playing out in front of them.  2011 all over again!

Coupon-mad

Trying to effectively align debt recovery with ADR (preferring to call it 'debt resolution') was jaw dropping.  

Debt recovery is completely different, assumes the 'debt' is owed and just aggressively demands it. There is no consideration of disputes, nothing.  Here's what is really happening:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk

This leaves every person high and dry who has not had a PCN because PPCs don't put one on the windscreen. As we know, this is a favourite modus operandi of the ex-clamper firms infesting residential car parks, targeting residents.

It's actually bloody clever of the industry to create this perfect storm for residents because they can then call them 'serial offenders', bamboozle the Government and blame the consumer for 'not changing logbook data' despite the fact many of these cases involve new tenants whose data is ripped off from the DVLA (unknown to the driver) with such haste that they can't possibly have changed their address within a day or two of moving in.

The fact that this then sees multiples of £70 added for one letter is plain appalling.

patient_dream

Umkomaas said:

D_P_Dance said:

From what I have seen of select committes they are not fools.  They made Boris squirm yesterday.

the wild statistics thrown out by PE. How can they link footfall with the amount of discount?  The greater the discount, the lower the footfall - really?  

Yes, the CEO of PE should reflect just how stupid that sounded. It is the precence of companies like PE that drive footfall down 

They are all clearly very worried about an independent appeals service and the costing.  Not a surprise as it will make the IPC and the BPA a subscription service only, one of them has to go . They will no longer rely on their codes of practice to fool the motorist ?

The MD of DRP could not substantiate what his company does and why and the charge of £70?  DRP and all the other drag artists in the debt business MUST be regulated, if not, why would anyone take any notice.
It's a bit like the TV licencing collectors. They are simply doorstep salesmen and if you simply say "no thank you not today", close the door .... they go away

I agree with DPD, the select commitee are not stupid and this awesom "FOUR AMIGOS" did nothing to prove that were right

The AA and RAC did prove that the "FOUR AMIGOS" were wrong

Will Hurley of the IPC was right to say the new code should be brought in quickly as he probably realises that his own members will suffer without the IAS scam.  That was a disaster Hurley and Davies (Gladstones) thought could make them rich..  keep the balance in your bank secure Will, as I'm sure their will be some huge claims against you. You don't want to go down the road of your mate do you ?

We will now see how the select commitee reacts, they are all MP's whose duty is to protect their constituents against rogue traders.