Code of practice

Half_way

AnotherForumite said:

Wigwamfan said:

bargepole said:

Some of the comments in this thread are way off the mark.

All we know, from the DM article, Private car park firms branded 'bullies' for bid to block cutting maximum fines from £100 to £50 | Daily Mail Online ,  is that some parking firms are trying to launch a Judicial Review of the DLUHC's decision to limit PCNs to £50, and to ban debt collection fees.

This has nothing to do with the Government, or the summer recess of Parliament, it is a matter for a High Court Judge, if and when permission is granted for a JR action to be brought before the Court.

If an action goes ahead, it will be a matter of senior Counsel representing the parking operators and for the Government, submitting written and oral arguments as to why the decision is or is not lawful. But even if the Judge sides with the parking operators, that doesn't necessarily mean the end of the matter - it will then be remitted back to the DLUHC, who may then have to conduct a further consultation and/or impact assessment.

Neil O'Brien MP has made the Department's stance on these issues very clear, and we can only hope he sticks to his guns, and instructs the Government Legal Department to robustly oppose the parking operators' action. There's still a lot of water to pass under the bridge before all this is concluded.

So the section re illegal add ons in current template response is still correct at this moment in time?   

Despite what some may advise here, there is nothing ‘illegal’ about escalated charges.

Whether they are enforceable or not is a different matter, all depends on the operators wording on signage and letters.

Enforceable or not is another thing altogether - yes you can say that additional charges may /will apply if late, in the same way you can state that red cars only  be parked in red bays and so on, you can even put a sign up saying trespassers will be shot.

 Try and enforce any of it and you will run into trouble

 You could say you will charge people for whatever you like , and by reading this you are entering into a contractual agreement to pay me £80 , but again whats enforceable?

The issue is when the nonsense starts to really  threaten and intimidate people the PPC industry is out of control and drunk on its own greed.

If Parking charge notices were kept to a reasonable level say £15-£20 ( or even £25) and "free" farming of sites in return for keeping revenue from parking charge notices was banned then we wouldn't be in this mess.

 The parking industry - as in the side of it that hands out grossly inflated parking charge notices is its own worse enemy and if things carry on then one eventual outcome could be a scandal breaking on the same level as the PPI insurance scandal payback.

 All the pieces of the puzzle are there for a scandal that could result in a PPC payback - where anyone who received and paid a parking charge notice over the last 6 years could be entitled to compensation from either the parking company or the landowner - all the bits are there, an out of control industry drunk on its own greed and plenty of material and stuff that just needs putting together

 All it takes is for the puzzle pieces to come together and for people to realise whats going on , if the smoke was cleared out of the way and no one paid a private parking charge notice the wheels would soon fall off the whole thing

Maybe one day, this forum will be full of posts where people are asking for help in finding good and cheap  places to park instead of the usual "help ive been fined " stuff

patient_dream

Half_way said:

AnotherForumite said:

Wigwamfan said:

bargepole said:

Some of the comments in this thread are way off the mark.

All we know, from the DM article, Private car park firms branded 'bullies' for bid to block cutting maximum fines from £100 to £50 | Daily Mail Online ,  is that some parking firms are trying to launch a Judicial Review of the DLUHC's decision to limit PCNs to £50, and to ban debt collection fees.

This has nothing to do with the Government, or the summer recess of Parliament, it is a matter for a High Court Judge, if and when permission is granted for a JR action to be brought before the Court.

If an action goes ahead, it will be a matter of senior Counsel representing the parking operators and for the Government, submitting written and oral arguments as to why the decision is or is not lawful. But even if the Judge sides with the parking operators, that doesn't necessarily mean the end of the matter - it will then be remitted back to the DLUHC, who may then have to conduct a further consultation and/or impact assessment.

Neil O'Brien MP has made the Department's stance on these issues very clear, and we can only hope he sticks to his guns, and instructs the Government Legal Department to robustly oppose the parking operators' action. There's still a lot of water to pass under the bridge before all this is concluded.

So the section re illegal add ons in current template response is still correct at this moment in time?   

Despite what some may advise here, there is nothing ‘illegal’ about escalated charges.

Whether they are enforceable or not is a different matter, all depends on the operators wording on signage and letters.

Enforceable or not is another thing altogether - 

The problem is that Government was duped into POFA2012 by the BPA.

It seems that the PPC's actually believe what the BPA says and their codes of practice.  All the BPA is a members club giving acxess to the DVLA, apart from that, they cannot make laws but they live in a dreamworld and try to scam the public with fakes ...... that is just what they did in their 2018 code of practtice which was introduced by one of their board members ?

There are fools and then you have FOOLS and the parking industry is full of FOOLs

Coupon-mad

I get it but won't go into the arguments against what you do.

We will go again.

Fruitcake

AnotherForumite said:

patient_dream said:

AnotherForumite said:

Wigwamfan said:

bargepole said:

Some of the comments in this thread are way off the mark.

All we know, from the DM article, Private car park firms branded 'bullies' for bid to block cutting maximum fines from £100 to £50 | Daily Mail Online ,  is that some parking firms are trying to launch a Judicial Review of the DLUHC's decision to limit PCNs to £50, and to ban debt collection fees.

This has nothing to do with the Government, or the summer recess of Parliament, it is a matter for a High Court Judge, if and when permission is granted for a JR action to be brought before the Court.

If an action goes ahead, it will be a matter of senior Counsel representing the parking operators and for the Government, submitting written and oral arguments as to why the decision is or is not lawful. But even if the Judge sides with the parking operators, that doesn't necessarily mean the end of the matter - it will then be remitted back to the DLUHC, who may then have to conduct a further consultation and/or impact assessment.

Neil O'Brien MP has made the Department's stance on these issues very clear, and we can only hope he sticks to his guns, and instructs the Government Legal Department to robustly oppose the parking operators' action. There's still a lot of water to pass under the bridge before all this is concluded.

So the section re illegal add ons in current template response is still correct at this moment in time?   

Despite what some may advise here, there is nothing ‘illegal’ about escalated charges.

Whether they are enforceable or not is a different matter, all depends on the operators wording on signage and letters.

Considering these add-ons derive from the BPA code of practice and the IPC followed, both being unregulated ...... what do you think is their legal authority to do this. PPC's, DRA's, dodgy legals never answer  because there is no answer ? 
You are a PPC, can you answer what the rest fail to do ?

It's simple really:

1. Prominently detail the specific sum that will be added in the event of late payment on the signage; thus forming part of the contract.
2. Include the extra charge (in the event of late payment) in the Notice to Keeper, as POFA allows for the sum specified in the NTK to be payable.

We know that DCAs offer a no win no fee service to parking operators.

1. What is the legal authority to add these charges if/when they have not been incurred by the PPC?
2. See 1. above

AnotherForumite

We know that DCAs offer a no win no fee service to parking operators.

1. What is the legal authority to add these charges if/when they have not been incurred by the PPC?
2. See 1. above

1. Where a DCA has been assigned, if the Parking Charge is paid, the charge is indeed incurred by the PPC i.e. the DCA 'won'; therefore, the charge is payable by the PPC.

2. If the matter goes to Court, and the PPC is awarded the extra £60/£70; this becomes payable to the DCA (again the charge HAS been incurred).

3. Where a DCA has been assigned, and they fail to collect; who cares what sum they were seeking.

4. Some PPCs don't use DCAs, so they incur their own admin costs chasing payment; it is only right that these are accounted for.

5. If the contract is worded correctly, the £70 is payable regardless of what its for. 

6. If the motorist wanted to pay the £60/£100, they should have done so when they had the chance.

Fruitcake

None of that explains the legal authority for adding charges that the PPC has not incurred.

If a charge is passed to a DCA, they fail to collect, the charge is passed back to the PPC, and then a court claim is issued, what is the legal authority for adding the £60/£70 charge when it has not been incurred by the PPC? In my example I said this was like someone fiddling their expenses by claiming something for money they have not actually spent.
In your point 3 above, you ask who cares what the sum was that was being sought. Well the simple answer is anyone who has received a court claim with the add ons still attached even though the claimant has not incurred those charges.

As for PPCs that don't add the debt collection/admin amounts, the Supreme Court stated that the original charge included the normal operating costs, the cost of debt collection, the cost of admin, and a profit. You are right that a PPC is entitled to recover their own admin costs chasing payment, but the highest court in the land has already said that is already covered by the original charge, and the department for levelling up has supported this by saying the add on charges are an attempt at extortion.

Again, what is the legal authority for a PPC to add charges that they have not incurred?

Which PPC do you work for?

For clarity, I am retired, and have no financial involvement in helping motorists who have received unfair parking charges.

patient_dream

Sad to say Fruitcake we will not get an answer simply because there is no answer

This BPA invention carries no clout as they are not law makers, they are a basic members club who went against the Supreme Court  and brainwashed their members into thinking the fakes were standard charges.

And again, it's sad that nobody can answer about the fake. apart from silly excuses like debt collection, damages or admin

AnotherForumite

Fruitcake said:

None of that explains the legal authority for adding charges that the PPC has not incurred.

If a charge is passed to a DCA, they fail to collect, the charge is passed back to the PPC, and then a court claim is issued, what is the legal authority for adding the £60/£70 charge when it has not been incurred by the PPC? In my example I said this was like someone fiddling their expenses by claiming something for money they have not actually spent.
In your point 3 above, you ask who cares what the sum was that was being sought. Well the simple answer is anyone who has received a court claim with the add ons still attached even though the claimant has not incurred those charges.

As for PPCs that don't add the debt collection/admin amounts, the Supreme Court stated that the original charge included the normal operating costs, the cost of debt collection, the cost of admin, and a profit. You are right that a PPC is entitled to recover their own admin costs chasing payment, but the highest court in the land has already said that is already covered by the original charge, and the department for levelling up has supported this by saying the add on charges are an attempt at extortion.

Again, what is the legal authority for a PPC to add charges that they have not incurred?

Which PPC do you work for?

For clarity, I am retired, and have no financial involvement in helping motorists who have received unfair parking charges.

With respect, you are either not reading my points or you are choosing to dismiss them based on your mindset.

Thankfully it's not you that I need to convince, it's the District Judges; the majority of which rule in our favor as they don't have the capacity to enable a variation of the contract or go against POFA.

Coupon-mad

If you win in court then £70 doesn't get paid to a DRA (e.g. DRPlus) who failed to collect, earlier in the process.

I am sure you are right that it does get pocketed by the roboclaim 'legal' who you appear also to call a DRA. Of course they appear to take the £70 (in multiples, per PCN). Lucrative to jump on this 'money for old rope' pseudo-legal bandwagon.  Soon adds up with a few multi-ticket victims.

Not the same thing as 'paying the original failed DRA' (which is what your post at first suggested, that you somehow owed them for doing nothing). We all know that the PPC has not incurred any fees whatsoever.

Then you contradict that and agree that a DRA isn't paid if they don't collect - which is our point.

Legal fees are capped in the small claims track for a reason. Letters sent in contemplation of legal proceedings fall within the £50 cap.  What this industry does is just imagines a fixed extra sum of money to sidestep that cap, whilst also coining it in from victims who get spooked by the first threatogram, and from those who get CCJs over £600. Kerchiiing!

It's clever.  It fools some Judges and plays fast and loose with the small claims track. But it must go.

AnotherForumite

Coupon-mad said:

If you win in court then £70 doesn't get paid to a DRA (say DRP) who failed to collect, earlier in the process.

I am sure you are right that it does get pocketed by the roboclaim 'legal' who you appear also to call a DRA. Of course they appear to take the £70 (in multiples, per PCN). Lucrative to jump on this 'money for old rope' pseudo-legal bandwagon.  Soon adds up with a few multi-ticket victims.

Not the same thing as 'paying the original failed DRA' (which is what your post at first suggested, that you somehow owed them for doing nothing). We all know you have not incurred any fees whatsoever.

Then you contradict that and agree that a DRA isn't paid if they don't collect - which is our point.

Legal fees are capped in the small claims track for a reason. Letters sent in contemplation of legal proceedings fall within the £50 cap.  What this industry does is just imagines a fixed extra sum of money to sidestep that cap, whilst also coining it in from victims who get spooked by the first threatogram, and from those who get CCJs over £600. Kerchiiing!

It's clever.  It fools some Judges and plays fast and loose with the small claims track. But it must go.

You are missing the point, although I don't expect you guys to suddenly change your view based on anything I post here. There could be a Supreme Court of appeal ruling that stated the extra charge was lawful, and the regulars would still say that they were wrong.

As a final response, as we are going round in circles, if the contract prominently details that the motorist agrees to pay £70 if they fail to pay £100 within 28 days of issue, by remaining the driver has agreed to the contract, and the charge.

Who retains the £70 is of zero relevance as it does not represent damages, GPEOL or even actual losses.