Code of practice

Fruitcake

According to the Supreme Court, the parking charge itself includes time and money spent on debt recovery and admin costs, as well as profit. 

Court fees and solicitors' fees are recoverable where there is a real debt, as they should be, on top of the original charge that includes other recovery costs and still leaves a decent profit.

ParkinEye recently reported a £12 million profit, without resorting to adding on fake costs that have not been accrued.
If other parking companies cannot survive without adding on fake amounts they never spent, then they should change their business model to that used by ParkingEye.

We know that DCAs offer a no win no fee service, meaning that there is no extra cost to a parking company if they choose to employ a DCA but do not get back the money they are claiming from the original charge.
Claiming these costs that have never been incurred by a parking company is like someone fiddling their expenses by submitting a claim for monies they have not spent. Quite simply, it is fraud.

Umkomaas

if someone owes you £100, you want the whole £100 back; it’s what your owed after all.

It's only owed when it is deemed owed. That gift does not rest with parking firms.

fisherjim

AnotherForumite said:

As for how other traders collect contractual debts, they use CSA compliant DRAs who don't add costs, they deduct a %.

Maybe they should…

If there are zero consequences for withholding payment, there is also zero incentive for people to pay what’s due. 

When a debt is pursued via the courts, it is accepted that any costs (all be them limited) are to be covered by the debtor if the creditor prevails; therefore, it is not unreasonable for this also to be the case pre-litigation i.e if someone owes you £100, you want the whole £100 back; it’s what your owed after all.

If someone refuses to pay you and your hand is forced to either a) spend time and money chasing what’s due; or b) use the services of a company to assist you to recover it; why on earth should you be left out of pocket.

You know very well that the debt collectors work on a no win no fee basis, so if a motorist sticks it out and doesn't pay the docile idiots and the invoice gets handed back no fee is due, and the PPC is not out of pocket. The only one slightly out of pocket is the debt collector for taking it on, and the lazy PPC that has used the dozy bully boys has do either back off or go to court.

Coupon-mad

A PPC is not out of pocket by sending the 3 bog standard letters that the BPA CoP mandates. You can then issue a template LBC and file a claim.

ParkingEye manage it. No fake costs. If they can then you all can.

Those 4 template letters, plus the £2.50 to the DVLA and 29pence for a soft trace (if the PPC can be bothered) costs no more than maybe £20 max (and that's if you get to LBC stage, where you will be demanding between £50 and £130).

That's a very decent profit margin for providing zero service to anyone whatsoever, and setting out to catch out staff or residents at £100 a pop. A captive audience of victims.  PPCs must be so proud.

There is no reason to then string it out for years using ThugsRUs.

Not that you pay them anything at the moment but if the owner of a PPC decides they can't manage to issue 4 template letters without help, and instead farms it out to ThugsRUs for years, then yes, of course you the trader must pay for that supposed 'service'. Your choice to engage ThugsRUs.

Makes you wonder why a PPC can't just issue 3 letters themselves really.

Here's an idea:

Try not engaging them.

Try doing the bulk soft trace yourselves and re-issuing the PCN to any new address (at the original rate) and guess what...people will pay you. This is why that's in the new code.  Quicker turnover and less work for you and fewer client complaints.

There is an honest way to trade hidden there for the better PPCs to discover if you look. And the better ones will survive and win more landowner contracts.

People aren't paying PPCs right now because they feel ripped off by the industry thuggishness and greed.

Allowing a DRA to deduct a % is standard practice.  Just as any plumber, dentist, gym or whoever has to, if they have unpaid charges. Often a hundred quid or so is unpaid so it's similar sums of money.

PPCs have more non-payers then honest traders who provide an actual public service do.  Anyone who can't work out why that might be, is missing the point of why PPCs are being regulated.

Madcoupon

Coupon-mad said:

A PPC is not out of pocket by sending the 3 bog standard letters that the BPA CoP mandates. You can then issue a template LBC and file a claim.

ParkingEye manage it. No fake costs. If they can then you all can.

Those 4 template letters, plus the £2.50 to the DVLA and 29pence for a soft trace (if the PPC can be bothered) costs no more than maybe £20 max (and that's if you get to LBC stage, where you will be demanding between £50 and £130).

That's a decent profit for providing zero service to anyone whatsoever, and setting out to catch out staff or residents at £100 a pop. A captive audience of victims.  PPCs must be so proud.

There is no reason to then string it out for years using ThugsRUs.

Not that you pay them anything at the moment but if you decide a PPC can't manage to issue 4 template letters without help, and instead farm it out to ThugsRUs for years, then yes, of course you the trader must pay for that service.

Just as any builder, dentist, gym or whoever has to if they have unpaid charges. 

PPCs have more non-payers then honest traders who provide an actual public service do.  Anyone who can't work out why that might be, is missing the point of why PPCs are being regulated.

Parking eye do send letters to debt? Not sure what you keep referring to but seems you may have your wires crossed? I’m sure things will be clearer next month or two 

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye never add fake costs to any court claim, nor LBCCC.

Their standard model is the 3 letters the BPA mandates, then a non-aggressive LBCCC which still offers a last-gasp appeal route. No costs added. EVER.

If you didn't know that, then take a look. That's how to trade and I've used their letters in another place, as a best practice example.

ParkingEye do have a rarer, non-standard model where they farm cases they are not keen to litigate on, out to DRPLUS or whoever. E.g. Scottish cases and maybe the odd client where they daren't rush to sue (Aldi seems to be one).

Scottish cases will in future no longer need to be treated much differently as you are getting keeper liability.

And if you choose to sign a contract where the landowner doesn't give you the right to sue, then that's the PPC's own choice - your problem. 

Madcoupon

Coupon-mad said:

ParkingEye never add fake costs to any court claim, nor LBCCC.

Their standard model is the 3 letters the BPA mandates, then a non-aggressive LBCCC which still offers a last-gasp appeal route. No costs added. EVER.

If you didn't know that, then take a look. That's how to trade and I've used their letters in another place, as a best practice example.

ParkingEye do have a rarer, non-standard model where they farm cases they are not keen to litigate on, out to DRPLUS or whoever. E.g. Scottish cases and maybe the odd client where they daren't rush to sue (Aldi seems to be one).

Scottish cases will in future no longer need to be treated much differently as you are getting keeper liability.

And if you choose to sign a contract where the landowner doesn't give you the right to sue, then that's the PPC's own choice - your problem. 

Coupon-mad said:

ParkingEye never add fake costs to any court claim, nor LBCCC.

Their standard model is the 3 letters the BPA mandates, then a non-aggressive LBCCC which still offers a last-gasp appeal route. No costs added. EVER.

If you didn't know that, then take a look. That's how to trade and I've used their letters in another place, as a best practice example.

ParkingEye do have a rarer, non-standard model where they farm cases they are not keen to litigate on, out to DRPLUS or whoever. E.g. Scottish cases and maybe the odd client where they daren't rush to sue (Aldi seems to be one).

Scottish cases will in future no longer need to be treated much differently as you are getting keeper liability.

And if you choose to sign a contract where the landowner doesn't give you the right to sue, then that's the PPC's own choice - your problem. 

Coupon-mad said:

ParkingEye never add fake costs to any court claim, nor LBCCC.

Their standard model is the 3 letters the BPA mandates, then a non-aggressive LBCCC which still offers a last-gasp appeal route. No costs added. EVER.

If you didn't know that, then take a look. That's how to trade and I've used their letters in another place, as a best practice example.

ParkingEye do have a rarer, non-standard model where they farm cases they are not keen to litigate on, out to DRPLUS or whoever. E.g. Scottish cases and maybe the odd client where they daren't rush to sue (Aldi seems to be one).

Scottish cases will in future no longer need to be treated much differently as you are getting keeper liability.

And if you choose to sign a contract where the landowner doesn't give you the right to sue, then that's the PPC's own choice - your problem. 

Why have I received one of the debt letters from DBCL which adds £70 then? They’re all over the internet too?

Coupon-mad

Because, as I said:

in cases where they are not sure of their position to litigate, they use DRPLUS and similar.  Similar includes DCBLtd.

DRAs add £70, even if 'working' (and I use that word loosely) for ParkingEye.  That's because it's ThugsRUs & friends who pocket the £70 if they manage to frighten people into paying the extortionate amount.

ParkingEye themselves NEVER add £70.

So, if they take a case back from DRPLUS or whoever...guess what? They revert back to £85 or whatever the PCN sum is. 

If you are a PPC poster, not only is it surprising if you don't know the difference and that PE never add any costs to their LBCCCs nor court claims, but it's also odd that you are claiming to have a PCN from them and don't know that you can safely ignore DCBLtd and the PCN will revert back down once DCBLtd give up.

Those of us who've been doing this stuff since long before Trevor Whitehouse had his toys taken away know a few things.  That's why we are being heard.

BigBrother1984

Coupon-mad said:

I disagree.

Statutory powers cannot and must never be handed to the ex-clampers and motley crew of robo-claim aggressors. It is bad enough that they were handed 'keeper liability'.

Look how they have abused that power.

 one industry cannot be singled out without affecting all other industries in how they contract with their customers and recover unpaid debts.

But the Govt already have a decade ago, with 'keeper liability'.  No other trader-consumer relationship allows a stranger to the contract to be bound.

As for how other traders collect contractual debts, they use CSA compliant DRAs who don't add costs, they deduct a %.

Which is exactly what DRPLUS used to do before they all conspired to fix their greedy unjust enrichment slice of the 'extra pie' at £70.

You may disagree, but Local Authority parking enforcement to a large degree is managed by the private sector. Companies like Indigo (Saba), NSL, Apcoa, ICES, to name a few carry out parking patrols, monitor bus lane cameras, issue PCNs, send out letter and handle appeals on behalf of the council. 

What I am alluding to is that if the law was written correctly it would not only protect motorists, but would force anyone who issue "penalties" to comply with the law. - The new single code is flimsy at best in controlling matters. 

To demonstrate, here are some stats quoted by Lord Lucas in the House of Lords debate: 
30% of motorists pay a PCN issued on the windscreen.
20% appeal a PCN placed on a windscreen (supplying address and contact details).
15% of PCNs on a windscreen is issued to a company or lease vehicle. (in which case DVLA data may not be required)

Can PPCs operate without DVLA access? 
- By issuing PCNs on windscreens around 65% of PCNs can be pursued without DVLA data. PPCs can therefore operate outside of the code without DVLA data. (Because there would be no limit for them on PCN level, or Debt Fees, and in law a contract is formed and therefore they could even pursue the debts through court.)
- Financially this may be more attractive than having to comply with onerous regulations, membership fees, appeals, DVLA charges... etc. (Especially when they can use patrol staff incentivised to issue high volumes of PCNs)

Does anyone actually know what the current PCN payment rate is for private parking? 
Local authorities run on anywhere between 70% and 80% payment rate, which includes the debt recovery element.
I cannot imagine PPCs get anywhere near that, due to information online and in the media about the legality of private parking charges.

Speaking of debt recovery... And government's aim to bring private parking in line with council parking; 

A £50 Council PCN (£25 at discount) will increase 28 days after the Notice to Owner from £50 by 50% to = £75.
Shortly after, a court registration fee of £9 is added. = £84
The case is passed to a debt collector (Enforcement Agent) and incidentally, those involved with Local Authority parking are also involved with private parking (DCBL being a case in point). 
At debt recovery "Compliance Stage" (basically sending one letter) a debt fee of £75 is added. = £159
7 Days later an enforcement agent can carry out a visit and  £235 is added = £394
If any items are taken and sold (like a vehicle) then a further £110 is added = £504
These are legally added under - The Taking Control Of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

The question arises here;
Why does the government permit an escalation in costs at every stage of a council PCN?
- It is an incentive to pay early, to save taxpayers from funding the recovery process.
- There are actual costs associated with recovery and looking at the escalation, those costs are not cheap.

So when you talk about statutory powers, many of those same companies already wield statutory powers when acting on behalf of councils or under the taking control of goods regulations. 

What I am getting at is that if the government had the will and the guts to tackle this properly then they could have solved it 10 years ago with robust legislation. Fact is no one wants to touch private parking with a bargepole! (apologies @Bargepole)

And I'm very sorry to say, but from reading it, the single code is not worth the paper it is written on; poorly thought out, full of holes, not to mention typos and inconsistencies. - Whoever wrote it should not be employed by government. 

BigBrother1984

Umkomaas said:

What % of the 8.4 million tickets issued was for truly abusing 'landowner rights', like fly parking without payment for hours on end, leaving the vehicle while catching a train to go to work for the day?

Do you truly believe that a few minutes overstay is really abusing landowner rights?

And what about targeting cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment because of all patients, they are the ones likely to be delayed leaving the hospital - still 'protecting landowner rights'?

Where is the concern for landowner rights when PPCs routinely ticket, refuse appeals, sue in their own name, those occupants of their own freehold property (ie, the very landowners purported to be 'protected')?

I'm afraid 'protecting landowner rights' has become a veneer in a pretty thin attempt to make this all sound reasonable. 

You touch on a pertinent point here; 
8.4 million DVLA enquiries (not all PCNs result in a DVLA enquiry) released to PPCs during 2019/2020
10.8 million DVLA enquiries (where majority are issued to the windscreen) released to Local Authorities during 2019/202
See - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/who-dvla-shares-data-with 

Consider:
1. At £2.50 per enquiry paid to the DVLA by PPCs, can government afford not to have PPCs making DVLA enquiries?  
2. No danger of that, because the new code will cause the DVLA enquiry volumes to increase! - Think about it! If you were a PPC and issuing 5000 PCNs at £100, and now the PCN is only £50 - how would you keep up profits? Simple; Just issue 10000 PCNs instead of 5000.
- Firstly you already know that more people will break the rules because, same as on local authority land the £25 discount is not enough of a scarecrow to stop people parking illegally. So your PCN count will go up naturally. But you need to cut costs, so you install ANPR which captures 100% of all infringements, whereas patrolling only ever catches 10% max. You also scale down your appeals and customer service to make up any operational deficit. 

I have heard the argument that no one sets out to abuse landowner rights. I feel the reasoning is flawed and we should consider a different approach. We must compare apples with apples. Why do people get tickets from the council? - Surely no one sets out to break the rules? Should councils stop issuing PCNs? Why do they issue PCN's in the first place? 
I don't know the answers, but it might have something to do with the attitude I witnesses when I first moved to the UK in that the British driver does not want to be told where they can and cannot park. 

However looking at it from the point of view of a landowner... If someone parks on my drive outside my house and leaves their vehicle there, I currently have no legal recourse to remove that vehicle. This recently happened near Manchester Airport when a dodgy airport parking company started dumping vehicles on private driveways, the residents soon found out that there was no legal way of removing those vehicles.