Code of practice

patient_dream

AnotherForumite said:

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.

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.

Now, that's one I want to see .... The Supreme Court over-riding The Supreme Court ?
That really would trash our legal system

What was said in the Beavis case still stands

Coupon-mad

AnotherForumite said:

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.

...and neither does it have a legitimate interest. It might be on the signs but it is unconscionable extortion.

You mention the Supreme Court. Remember Lord Neuberger said 'none of this means ParkingEye could charge whatever it liked'.

There is also the question of VAT  because it is described as debt recovery time/effort. That attracts VAT. Are PPCs paying it, or assuming it's part of the parking charge and exempt?

HMRC might be taking a close look at this now...

Fruitcake

AnotherForumite said:

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.

I am reading your points; I have not dismissed your points, but you have not addressed my point because you still have not answered my question, which is, "what is the legal authority for a PPC to add charges that they have not incurred?"

I am not talking about what may or may not happen in the future, I am asking about the current situation. 

How would you convince a district judge if they asked, "have you incurred the extra charge?" Most motorists know nothing about your unregulated industry, and don't know enough to ask that question themselves.
Many judges don't know enough about it, and many quite rightly won't ask if it has not been challenged by the defendant. They must act only on the evidence before them.
Despite a solicitor's first duty being to the court, have you ever known one to say, by the way sir/madam, the claimant is claiming an amount for monies they have not incurred?

You still have not told us for which PPC you work.

Madcoupon

Wow, are you still on this one? Time you moved onto another hot potato. Have you seen the latest this evening on the Gov website?

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

AnotherForumite said:

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.

HMRC might be taking a close look at this now...

It is vital that HMRC investigate this industry and DRA's as this could back to 2018 when ZZPS DREAMED UP THE FAKE

The way the VAT people work is " prove to us you don't owe the money"