MSE Parking Ticket Appeals Guide feedback

aoldfolk

Just won mine against ukpc using all the wonderful advice on here. 

Will contribute however I can! 

pinkelephant12

Since the changes to this forum, I'm no longer getting notifications for threads I have bookmarked.  Is this affecting others too?  I'm worried I will miss the consultation.

Fruitcake

I'm getting notifications.

If you visit the site at least one a week you won't miss it but I suggest you bookmark this thread and check your profile "Account and Privacy" settings as well.

rollin_wheels

just had Welcome Break cancel an unjust (double dip ANPR failure) attempt by Parking Eye to benefit their bank account at the cost of mine. If my experience can be used to help bring this awful business model down I'll be happy to help.

1505grandad

Wonder why they are so security concious:-

"Registrations for online meetings held via Zoom will be reviewed by the BPA team and relevant checks made before being approved or declined as appropriate."

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/events

4/8/2023 - Parking (Code of Practice) Act - Call for Evidence Update

The Government will be opening a call for evidence imminently, join us for this very important update following our recent email communications.

Coupon-mad

MSE_James said:

Hi @Coupon-mad just confirming we've seen the message above and will be on the alert for the start of the consultation, and will make sure our news colleagues are aware of it when it happens as well.

@MSE_JC

@MSE_Laura_F 
@MSE_Martin 
@MSE_ForumTeam2 
@MSE_ForumTeam1


Hope it's OK to tag you all... thankyou in advance! 

Please could you tell your MSE news colleagues that the DLUHC is calling for responses to their private parking 'Call for Evidence' which is open until 24th September.

It would be great to get this circulated in the MSE weekly newsletter for maximum consumer reach.

Fingers crossed MSE agrees.

The draft IA is lengthy at 90 pages!  Must confess I have not read it yet but will do this afternoon:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence

My thoughts:

I confess that reading the IA in depth might change my initial instinct (I mulled over the 5 options this morning after reading an early newspaper summary only) but out of the 5, my view is the LAST one is best.

£100 / £70 and ban DRA fees (option 5).

This is my opinion and I know the British Motorists Protection Association ('the BMPA') prefers option 3 so respondents must make up your own minds!

I prefer option 5 for these reasons:

- keep it simple, just 2 levels, no extortionate London difference, no hybrid and confusing different 'special higher levels'; start at £70 (which is the same as Tesco & Sainsburys etc. have at the moment);

- it avoids the massive trap of mirroring LA models which I think would come back to bite us all, a few years on;

- I think it is really important to distance this contract law regime from Local Authority penalties (because this regime is not a penalty model) and to forge clear different lines now means there's less risk of muddying the waters for future Ministers who might assume this is the same as the on-street penalty regime;

- the BPA will lobby for the £50 level to be increased soon anyway as they already are;

I appreciate I might be controversial with the above view because it doesn't start at £50.  I think the London level at £130 is so heinous and unjustified (the 'Knight Act' wasn't about increasing the current £100!) that it's a 'no' from me personally. 

Obviously only the two 'DRA fee ban' options are acceptable to protect motorists from bulk litigation 'extortion'!

Option 3 or 5 only.

An alternative mooted 30% add-on is much heftier and more damaging than one may think.

Particularly terrible for multi-PCN cases and it would be a massive 3 figure add-on for cases with several PCNs - mostly seen at a residential or NHS staff sites, for example where permits weren't given out on time or residents have prior rights and had a regime foisted on them that they want to fight.

That makes nurses, other hospital staff and residents more likely to be targeted with multiple PCNs and sued for enormously inflated sums, than a shopper with a single PCN.

And the main PPCs in residential car parks are ex-wheelclampers (some of the worst rogues IMHO) so it's bad enough to hand them the statutory right to issue £100 charges.  They must certainly not be encouraged to look for ways to issue multiple PCNs and add hundreds (the 30%) to encourage bulk litigation - that's what we have now!

Adding anything is unjustified, stops people paying at Letter Before Claim stage and causes more court claims.  It cannot be right to add an uncapped percentage and we all want an outright BAN.

The Late Payment Fee Regs exclude consumer contracts for very good reasons but even those regs cap B2B fees at £40 (not an uncapped percentage!):
https://www.gov.uk/late-commercial-payments-interest-debt-recovery/claim-debt-recovery-costs

The Law Commission - in an article about the Late Fee Regs - said a few years ago that late fees are 'inappropriate' for consumer contracts.  We agree.

This rogue industry demonstrates why!

For that reason:

Option 3 or 5 only is undoubtedly going to be this board's view but motorists are encouraged to read the link and write your own responses with evidence where appropriate.

Some questions calling for evidence are more 'industry-facing' but pleeease don't let that put motorists off!

Coupon-mad

To balance my view above that I think Option 5 works best as a workable level that gives consistency, simplicity and to separate this PPC regime from LA penalties, David Carrod of the BMPA (who has agreed that I quote him) says this:

"Option 3 is the only acceptable one IMHO - £50 generally, with £80 in London Boroughs, 50% discount, and no debt recovery fees. That’s  what we’ve been fighting for these past 3+ years.

It also should stipulate that the £100 charge for places where parking is not invited, must NOT apply to residential car parks where the motorist is a resident, visitor, or leaseholder."

Coupon-mad

Please reply on the DISCUSSION THREAD:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6463361/dluhc-private-parking-code-call-for-evidence-discussion-thread/p1?new=1

Coupon-mad

I posted this in the thread called 'Parking in the News / Media' but I think this is also one for MSE Towers to take a look at publicising:

August 2, 2023

London Councils is holding a consultation into parking and traffic penalty charges which appears to be the first step in an increase across the capital.

https://www.hammersmithtoday.co.uk/#!pages/shared:common:contrans013

Some posters here might well want to respond to this consultation (anyone who ever drives in London):

“Today’s consultation is a crucial part of the Transport and Environment Committee’s decision-making process on penalty charge levels and additional fees, and anyone who uses London’s roads can have their say on the new proposals. We are dedicated to ensuring the plans don’t negatively impact lower income and more vulnerable people and welcome all input into this consultation.”

The consultation finishes on Monday 23 October and analysis of the results will be considered by London Councils' Transport and Environment Committee on Thursday 7 December.

To respond to the consultation click here.

Hmmm... say what now?

A Consultation on "penalty charge levels and additional fees"?

"Claimed that current levels not high enough to provide a deterrent"?

WHAT ADDITIONAL FEES?

Why does this sounds a bit too familiar..?

Sounds very similar to BPA spiel... 

Anyone else suspect that the BPA's guiding hand might be pushing this carefully-timed Consultation?

This is one reason why the private parking regime should NEVER be aligned with Local Authority PCN levels.  In my opinion - and others may disagree - Private Parking CANNOT mirror this or the BPA will be pushing for increases across the board, every second year, as and when the Private Code is reviewed.

Protest

How can we get law makers and law enforcers to understand that the concept of a penalty/incentive charge levied on at-fault motorists is also an incentive for parking operators to misbehave and ensnare motorists in bogus breach situations?  Misbehaviour would stop very quickly if the incentive charge was capped and transferred to the public purse,

Regulator might also insist that PCNs were renamed and presented clearly as invoices, not as pseudo "fines"