Parking Review article June 2022 - increase in private PCNs 'not due to unethical management...'

Coupon-mad

June 2022 Parking Review:

https://edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&pubid=5bcb21d2-0c12-4b90-b70c-f18e58232177

Odd that they printed this now (page 29) given it looks as though it was written six months ago. IMHO utter rubbish being spouted about the increase in PCN numbers.

Read it and weep (my bold capitals):

"There is no denying the number of PCNs has increased; but whilst many are quick to shoot the messenger, this rise is due to a vast range of factors - NONE of which are a result of unethical management".

Really?

Really?


However, what is useful in that article, is that Dyl Kurpil (District Enforcement) quotes RAC Foundation figures and reminds us all that the numbers of parking firms getting DVLA data has increased hugely in the 5 years between 2016 and 2021:

https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/jump-in-number-of-private-parking-companies

"According to data published by the DVLA 159 companies brought vehicle-keeper records from the agency in the first three months (April, May and June) of this financial year.

That compared with 97 firms in the same period of 2016, an increase of 64%."

Why is that worth remembering? ...that 64% of new PPCs have recently jumped on this lucrative rogue bandwagon...?

Because the BPA said:

https://www.britishparking-media.co.uk/news/responsible-motorists-to-lose-out-under-government-proposals-to-reduce-parking-charges

"46% of BPA operators would become insolvent within 12 months and 62% by the end of year 2."

Not that their stats make any sense, but tell us why would anyone have any problem with that, given the recent enormous increase in parking firms?

Why not sort out the wheat from the chaff and remove the dinosaur ex-clampers and the old or new kids on the block who trade unethically, and even then the remaining PPCs who survive and follow the new Code of Practice rules would still number more than existed in 2016.

Also, given the massive increase in PPCs, and the growth of roboclaim firms like DCBLegal (boasting in Parking News about how they are taking on more staff and expanding - some might say, swelling) clearly the money involved right now - upon which no PPC pays VAT, because it's stupidly exempt - is attracting more and more money-grabbers and is plain extortionate.  Unconscionable, as the Supreme Court said.

nicestrawb

Yeh I've always wondered that. "Let's warn the public and the government that if all this goes ahead, the crooks will all go bust".
That's the whole point mate...

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

June 2022 Parking Review:

Because the BPA said:

https://www.britishparking-media.co.uk/news/responsible-motorists-to-lose-out-under-government-proposals-to-reduce-parking-charges

"46% of BPA operators would become insolvent within 12 months and 62% by the end of year 2."

Also, given the massive increase in PPCs, and the growth of roboclaim firms like DCBLegal (boasting in Parking News about how they are taking on more staff and expanding - some might say, swelling) clearly the money involved right now - upon which no PPC pays VAT, because it's stupidly exempt - is attracting more and more money-grabbers and is plain extortionate.  Unconscionable, as the Supreme Court said.

And if nobody broke the "rules"; 99%, (apart from those operating their own car parks such as NCP and maybe Excel), would become insolvent within 12 months, if not quicker.

With regards to paying VAT; thanks to Apcoa Parking Denmark, the CJEU ruled in January 2022 that PPC's operating in the EU had to pay VAT on their "Penalty charges" in their pay to park car parks. (Of course, "thanks" to BREXIT it doesn't apply to the UK).

https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/cjeu-decision-on-parking-penalty-charge-vat-case-suggests-hmrc-guidance-may-not-be-correct/

Umkomaas

Should VAT apply, would the PCN value not be increased to £120 (£100 + VAT)?  I wonder if fear of this is the motivation for the BPA's pleading that PCNs should be £120 (perhaps inclusive of VAT in due course?)?

The VAT treatment of parking fines will depend on whether the charge is a genuine fine or an additional charge for parking: 

If it's a 'genuine fine' (penalty), we all know that these cannot be issued by private organisations, thus all PCNs would fall into the latter, and thereby attract VAT.  Food for thought.

Saturday morning musings (ramblings) from Umkomaas Towers! 🤓

Le_Kirk

Hmm, hasn't the ministry of housing, communities and local government been replaced by the levelling down ministry?  Shows that @Coupon-mad is correct and it is old news!

ParkingMad

Or was the original PCN amount of £100 arrived at because it is approximately the Beavis £85 plus VAT?

Snakes_Belly

"Why not sort out the wheat from the chaff and remove the dinosaur ex-clampers and the old or new kids on the block who trade unethically, and even then the remaining PPCs who survive and follow the new Code of Practice rules would still number more than existed in 2016."

Was that not the rationale behind Sir Greg Knights PMB. "to sort the wheat from the chaff"?

These delaying tactics are now getting annoying. The PMB received total cross party support. This was because the MPs were receiving so much flack from their constituents.

Perhaps MP's need a bit more flack. 

Coupon-mad

I think we do need to carefully plan our responses to the final (really final) new Public Consultation, by:

- looking at the DLUHC's stated aims (as set out in the last consultation) and making our answers align with those, and

- looking at a recent DLUHC Impact Assessment and seeing what questions they will be covering and how that informs a decision, and

- blowing out of the water the utter drivel we know the parking industry will say.  But not just by saying their stats are imaginary. We'd have to show why they make no sense.

We'll all be well qualified to apply for jobs as economics consultants at the end of all this. Or we could get jobs at Mazaars, who seem to be lacking a level of common sense...!

Coupon-mad

Castle said:

Coupon-mad said:

June 2022 Parking Review:

Because the BPA said:

https://www.britishparking-media.co.uk/news/responsible-motorists-to-lose-out-under-government-proposals-to-reduce-parking-charges

"46% of BPA operators would become insolvent within 12 months and 62% by the end of year 2."

Also, given the massive increase in PPCs, and the growth of roboclaim firms like DCBLegal (boasting in Parking News about how they are taking on more staff and expanding - some might say, swelling) clearly the money involved right now - upon which no PPC pays VAT, because it's stupidly exempt - is attracting more and more money-grabbers and is plain extortionate.  Unconscionable, as the Supreme Court said.

And if nobody broke the "rules"; 99%, (apart from those operating their own car parks such as NCP and maybe Excel), would become insolvent within 12 months, if not quicker.

With regards to paying VAT; thanks to Apcoa Parking Denmark, the CJEU ruled in January 2022 that PPC's operating in the EU had to pay VAT on their "Penalty charges" in their pay to park car parks. (Of course, "thanks" to BREXIT it doesn't apply to the UK).

https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/cjeu-decision-on-parking-penalty-charge-vat-case-suggests-hmrc-guidance-may-not-be-correct/

Very useful. Thanks @Castle.

Guess where that's being sent?!

Snakes_Belly

https://www.change.org/p/three-spires-shopping-centre-car-park-returned-to-council

The petition in Lichfield with now over 1000 signatures is an example of how aggressive these PPC's are. There are still people signing. These motorists can't all be bilkers.

I just hope that they are all writing to their MP's. 

BTW, this is not a huge car park. Quite small really.   

Coupon-mad

I think that's very good evidence of impact of aggressive ticketing at £100 a pop that the public just will not stomach any more.

We need to gather more.  Llangrannog being one.

Don't forget that because the level of parking charges is back on the table, I'd say all the higher and lower bands are too, and the London massive difference (and 'London' was never defined) plus of course, the odd decision to go hybrid and make residential and staff car parks £100.