Please respond - regulars on parking board - new and fairer PAP needed for parking cases

Coupon-mad

@ParkingMad saw this on LPC Law's website:

https://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/consultation-on-pre-action-protocols-launched/

Here is the link to the consultation itself

https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=KEeHxuZx_kGp4S6MNndq2A4P3kq4_PZOjyDS92Tzn6RUNVAxMU9MVjhGVUc4WFlONDJQME4wWUY3QS4u

CLOSES NEXT WEEK!

One week left to put in some carefully thought out responses, alerting the MoJ to the desperate need to rescue people with private parking charges from being treated like 'debtors' and having to fill in their income and expenditure as if there is an assumption that they owe money, when in fact all they need to do is dispute a parking charge or ten, sent to a wrong address due to the DVLA getting it wrong.  

What would also be great would be to include an obligation on PPCs not to rely on DVLA data alone, even if a claim is filed within months.  Their database is just too unreliable to be taken to be the last address at which the keeper actually lives and can be served.

I will give the DLUHC a heads up about this welcome consultation as they may have something they wish to liaise on, and might not know about this.  Important that everything comes together to make PPCs treat people more fairly.

bargepole

I have now completed and submitted a response to the consultation, on behalf of the BMPA.

 The main points are:

 1/ That there should be a new PAP, specifically for claims issued by private parking operators. It should be mandatory for Claimants, in cases where the original parking charge was issued more than 12 months previously, to show that they have used a tracing service to verify the current address of the Defendant, which may be different from the one they obtained from the DVLA at the date of issue of the parking charge.

 2/ The current Debt PAP is inappropriate for claims for parking charges. The new Parking PAP should be a substantially simplified version, to establish whether or not the Defendant accepts liability for the parking charge, and without the need for the Defendant to complete a statement of income and expenditure. Parking charges are not ‘debts’ as defined by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and only become legally enforceable if and when adjudicated to be so by a Judge in the County Court. Consequently, attempts at mediation, or the listing of ‘dispute resolution’ hearings are inappropriate for this type of case, where in most instances the Claimant seeks to recover the full sum claimed, and the Defendant denies any liability whatsoever.

Regulars on this board are encouraged to submit a similar response, but rewording the above so that it doesn't look like a cut and paste job. The more responses they get along these lines, the more likely they are to take some action. Deadline is on Friday 24 December.

Fruitcake

My Lovely Cousin and I have both responded, and included many of the points mentioned above plus the following,

Good faith obligation should include proof of authority (landowner contract) to issue a claim, and for an own space case, check a resident's existing rights before issuing a claim.

Where debt collection fees are being claimed, proof that costs have actually been incurred must be included, especially where the DCA offers a no win no fee service. Claiming monies that have not been spent is fraud and the whole claim should be thrown out.

More leeway should be allowed for litigants in person who breach the PAP, for example with late responses, and less leeway should be allowed for solicitors or a company's legal department who breach the PAP.

More time should be allowed for a defendant to respond to a LBC or a claim since they may not be at home during the initial fourteen day period.