Code of practice

Madcoupon

So todays news is a bombshell

Grizebeck

I would not call a Judicial Review of the code of practice (debt element) a bomb shell and it will most likely not change the eventual outcome

Le_Kirk

Madcoupon said:

So todays news is a bombshell

What news might that be?

fisherjim

You would think the OP's first post might have more substance than this!

Grizebeck

Le_Kirk said:

Madcoupon said:

So todays news is a bombshell

What news might that be?

A JR into the code of practice decision. They are not happy about the removal of the Debt fee

Madcoupon

Have I heard it’s been over turned? Lynn maybe you know best? 

Grizebeck

Madcoupon said:

Have I heard it’s been over turned? Lynn maybe you know best? 

You have no idea how a Judicial Review works and the parameters involved.
Even if the parking industry wins a JR then all the government has to do is a few tweaks and then simply reaffirm the decision already made, it doesn't change anything in the long term, it is literally re-arranging the deck chairs
Nice to see a parking company trying though

Le_Kirk

There was a half-hearted attempt at adding debt fees in July 2021 but it failed.

Umkomaas

I notice that early this morning AnotherForumite thanked the OP. That 'thanks' has now been removed by him. Damp squibb? 

NCC1701-A

I wonder how many hours they spent coming up with a name to try and wind their nemesis up. If only they'd spent it putting their house in order before the government chose to act.

Coupon-mad

I don't know, but suspect there is some truth in it, given the spouting and general posturing by Derek Millard-Smith made public by ZatPark here and a few hints in the BPA's ParkingNews:

https://zatpark.com/blog/bpa-aos-code-of-practice-panel-debate

We did already have a thread on this which was updated just weeks ago, after these rumours:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6264627/parking-news-judicial-review-here-we-go-again/p6

Given the multi millions (billions, going forward) that ride on the fake added costs, which are added per PCN in multi ticket cases, and that this is what funds all the non-ParkingEye court claims, you can't expect roboclaimsRUs and friends not to try.

After all, one of the (by all accounts, and from what we've seen here) worst roboclaim lot, DBLegal, were boasting in Parking News about their recent massive growth and their expansion plans...someone's got to pay for all those new staff they added, presumably in the hope that the gravy train was set to continue.

Joe Public has funded the DRA and roboclaim aggression up until now.  How dare the Govt turn off that tap?!  Waaaahh!

Throw away multi billions that prop up the roboclaim industry...or spend a few hundred thousand throwing your toys out the pram now for another bite at the cherry?  Obviously the desperate 'ex-clampers and roboclaim' motley crew think it's worth it.

If the Govt wants more court claims and people absolutely rinsed as they are now, then allowing the fake costs will secure that.

Imagine the message that would send to any other traders who make contracts with consumers? 

That anyone can add any old costs, even if they haven't incurred them or paid anything out, purely to 'INDUCE' (roboclaim word) the public to come to heel and pay up. I mean it is laughable - of course traders can't do that and any Judges who think they can are deluded.

But this isn't what a JR is about, assuming some wheels are turning.  Let's see.

Madcoupon said:
Have I heard it’s been over turned? Lynn maybe you know best? 

There's only one person in the industry who spells my name like that.

Grizebeck said:
I would not call a Judicial Review of the code of practice (debt element) a bomb shell and it will most likely not change the eventual outcome.

Hopefully not.  The DLUHC would no doubt soon realise their error, if it actually affected their decision.

But you seem in the know and only joined last week?  Tell us more.