Parking stories in the News/media

Nobinium

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82174106#Comment_82174106

This is what I was wondering.

If the maximum charge is £100 with this code, how would a charge then be allowed to go higher than £100 via debt collection?

Maybe I don't understand the ins and outs.

Nobinium

But then again, if the max charge of £100 is theoretically supposed to stop the debt recovery fees, why would the government say this:

The government said it would be consulting on the issue of debt recovery fees

yarpsnehpets

It's worth noting that there is no ability to pass on the extra £70 'debt collection' element under POFA where the operator chases the keeper in the instance where no driver is nominated.

Operator (Claimants) will say that the driver agreed to the extra £70 recovery fee when they parked but POFA only recognises the original £100 charge. Technically, the operator (Claimant) can only pursue the £70 directly from the unidentified driver and not the keeper.

The truth is that the £70 add on is critical to the operators in terms of commercial viability - if they could only claim (as per POFA wording) "the amount of the unpaid parking charges" then it becomes less likely that there would be sufficient profit in the whole process?

patient_dream

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82174106#Comment_82174106

I agree ….. right now there is no cap although the standard charge is £100

As the £100 will be frozen / capped their will be good reason to argue that fake add-ons goes above the legal maximum allowed by law

The fake add-on of £70 starts with the OSNER SCAM from dent collectors

It then goes to money scam legals who call the fake numberous names such as DCBL calling the fake damages which of course is rubbish

A FEEZE MEANS JUST THAT ..ONE FIXED AMOUNT

5 MINUTES TO GET A TICKET from a pay mchine is too low, what about finding a space then a pay machine, what about pay machines that don't work, older folk who puzzle how to download an app and that depends if they have a phone ?

Rayner said on TV today that if parking companies flout the code they could lose access to the DVLA WHICH WOULD BUST THEM

Government could have done a lot motre the stop the scam. Operators, Debt collectors and the legals should be banned if they attempt to charge more than the £100 FREEZE. That is where the CMA should step in and fine them, the SRA should alao investigate

An independent appeals service is well overdue to get rid of the current kangaroo courts being POPLA and the IAS

Mr Burnham …. there is still a lot more to do to keep your voters happy

Le_Kirk

There was a bit on Jeremy Vine's show today on Radio 2; once he and other contributors had said "fine" 5 times, despite me shouting at the radio it was a speculative invoice, I turned it off!

yarpsnehpets

Of course, a 'freeze' on the max £100 charge makes it a less and less profitable business as time goes on as running costs will creep up with inflation. It has been £100 for some time now.

patient_dream

The FREEZING of parking charges can only mean that the dodgy legals cannot increase the charge with feeble excuses

These follows the Beavis case where the Supreme Court ruled that the charge was in place to operate the scheme

The Supreme Court NEVER said that fake charges could ne added ?

The FREEZE is much the same so what will judges rule on ?

What will the Judges do if the so called legals try to add DOUBLE RECOVERY charges ?

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82174929#Comment_82174929

I imagine that, from a Court perspective, each case would need to be examined very closely.

As previously mentioned, the £70 add-on comes from the alleged contract which the DRIVER formed with the operator at the time of parking - there is no magical legal mechanism which allows an operator to simply add the £70 - the £70 has to be based purely on contract and, critically, forms no part of the PCN itself.

Operator's routinely add this £70 to claims without considering whether they are pursuing the driver or the keeper - in many cases the keeper has refused to identify the driver - this means that the operator is pursuing the keeper using POFA - therefore, in that circumstance, there is no route to liability in terms of the £70 contractual charge because it can only be the DRIVER who is liable for the contractual charge.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81928404#Comment_81928404

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/oct/15/no-timeline-for-lifting-land-registry-paywall-as-ownership-remains-opaque

Nellymoser

A nurse who got stuck in a lift while trying to treat a sick baby is facing a £266 charge and court action from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq4g13yykvkvo

Her case has been taken on by Dudley MP Sonia Kumar:

"The lifts were broken. She climbed five floors to reach her patient, and for that, she is now facing court action, it's not good enough," Kumar said.

"I have asked the company to look at the facts and cancel this charge. Nurses should be able to do their jobs without this hanging over them."