IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

DLUHC Private Parking Code: Government launches Call For Evidence - discussion thread

Coupon-mad
Coupon-mad Posts: 131,275 Forumite
Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
edited 27 September 2023 at 2:54PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking
I will add more here later but for now:

Government launches call for evidence on parking charge limits to protect drivers


EDIT:

The DLUHC has decided to extend the call for evidence period by two weeks, so it’ll now close on 
Sunday 8 October.

The Government has taken a key step in making sure that drivers’ interests are protected when using private car parks:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-call-for-evidence-on-parking-charge-limits-to-protect-drivers


My view:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80204165/#Comment_80204165

The BPA is already lobbying for the LA levels to increase so the headline £50 would go up in coming years and (with Option 3 that otherwise looks tempting) we'd be stuck with a regime that future Ministers & new DLUHC staff would treat the same as LA penalties , and might in future assume they are all the same.

In the blink of an eye, with furious lobbying and more credulous Ministers in future, they'll have increased the £50/£70 anyway and will be demanding 'consistency' with the LA penalty model, whereby a third is added for 'enforcement' at late stages (but that's INSTEAD of court fees not as well...)!

That's the red flag for me.  This MUST be different but MUST ban the fees altogether so IMHO, I say Option 5 has longevity and is less open to abuse or challenge.


The BMPA's view:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80204200/#Comment_80204200


'Option 3 or 5 only' is undoubtedly going to be this board's view but motorists are encouraged to read the link and write your own responses with evidence where appropriate.

Some questions calling for evidence are more 'industry-facing' but pleeease don't let that put motorists off!
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
«13456787

Comments

  • Brie
    Brie Posts: 9,872 Forumite
    Photogenic First Post Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Is this part of what is being reported about Sunak being on the side of drivers?  Or is that just about allowing rat runs through quiet neighbourhoods continue??
    "Never retract, never explain, never apologise; get things done and let them howl.”
  • pdel61
    pdel61 Posts: 940 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Brie said:
    Is this part of what is being reported about Sunak being on the side of drivers?  Or is that just about allowing rat runs through quiet neighbourhoods continue??
    I assume by "rat runs" you means roads used by vehicles for getting from one place to another.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 131,275 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    edited 27 September 2023 at 2:56PM
    Brie said:
    Is this part of what is being reported about Sunak being on the side of drivers?  Or is that just about allowing rat runs through quiet neighbourhoods continue??

    Coincidental perhaps, because this isn't about rat runs but it is a long-awaited final push designed to end rogue practice by 'PPC World and Friends'  and breathe new life and confidence into the High Streets.

    This Draft Impact Assessment was long-planned and was overdue, but these are apparently Rishi Sunak's words about private parking rip-off charges - a few years ago:

    "There are a lot of rogue operators out there that are taking advantage of people. The signage is pretty poor, there's inconsistent practices, they send very intimidating letters, and clearly they think there's a game there."

    "Those threatening letters, they look very legalistic, they are intimidating, they have to stop!"

    And "While many of these parking companies operate responsibly, many do not, and some, frankly, have been running little more than thinly-veiled extortion rackets."

    Most right-thinking people are likely to agree.  MPs certainly did, in 2018.

    Source:
    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-12351599/amp/TONY-HETHERINGTON-Parked-pledge-ripoffs-Rishi.html

    The above words in bold were from our now Prime Minister.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • pdel61
    pdel61 Posts: 940 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    I do think if we end up with anything other than 3 or 5 it'll be regarded as a failure. I don't imagine any of the rogue operators are going to agree, I wonder what they'll say in their secret zoom meeting.

    It would be good if there were some mechanism to regulate future rises in the charges, I'm sure there will be pressure for them to increase and clearly over time it would seem reasonable that they do, but it needs to be controlled. I don't want to end up like the ridiculous increases, inflation + 3.9%, that the broadband and phone companies have.
  • YankeeBrit
    YankeeBrit Posts: 180 Forumite
    Photogenic First Post Name Dropper
    The danger is that having two "similar" options (3 and 5) which would probably be the most acceptable to the consumer/motorists is they, in effect, 'split the vote' which dilutes the numbers preferring the best options for the consumer/motorist and allow the operators to weigh in with their single preferred option (probably option 1).

    Thoughts?
  • Ed2022
    Ed2022 Posts: 175 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    The danger is that having two "similar" options (3 and 5) which would probably be the most acceptable to the consumer/motorists is they, in effect, 'split the vote' which dilutes the numbers preferring the best options for the consumer/motorist and allow the operators to weigh in with their single preferred option (probably option 1).

    Thoughts?
    I think I agree with you there.

    Ideally option 3 but for simplicity as well as uniformity then option 5. But still think that the fees in 3 or 5 are still ludicrous given the actual costs of the parking fee in most instances.
  • pdel61
    pdel61 Posts: 940 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Ed2022 said:
    The danger is that having two "similar" options (3 and 5) which would probably be the most acceptable to the consumer/motorists is they, in effect, 'split the vote' which dilutes the numbers preferring the best options for the consumer/motorist and allow the operators to weigh in with their single preferred option (probably option 1).

    Thoughts?
    I think I agree with you there.

    Ideally option 3 but for simplicity as well as uniformity then option 5. But still think that the fees in 3 or 5 are still ludicrous given the actual costs of the parking fee in most instances.
    I guess one problem is that the fee needs to be enough to encourage people to park. It would be of little point if it was cheaper to pay the fee as opposed to the original parking charge.
  • patient_dream
    patient_dream Posts: 3,541 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Photogenic Name Dropper
    Both options 3 and 5 are not in the interests of the general public who consist of millions of voters

    If we must have one of them, debt collectors must be banned and their play on words and the language they use to extort money. There is no room for these bottom feeding legals like DCBL to try and pretend with words like "DAMAGES" which is a cover up for debt collection charges.  ALL FAKE ADD-ONS MUST BE BANNED and classed as EXTORTION.

    As said, SUNAK said today that he is on the side of motorist.  which I think he means about ULEZ AND THE CRACKPOT MAYOR OF LONDON.

    Who on earth wants to drive into London anyway, it will soon become a ghost town, Oxford Street is already 

    And then you have Mr Gove of the DLUHC ?   It's taken over a year to ask the same questions about private parking and this consultation will produce yet another consultation ?  
    Why on this earth does Sunak think that Gove is suitable, Boris sacked him but Sunak put him in charge of the DLUHC and already he is making a pigs ear of it ..... the fool is now going to destroy High streets turning them into houses and flats ?

    When will Sunak wake up and understand that these "has beens" will probably lose him the next election


  • Ed2022
    Ed2022 Posts: 175 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    …………

    Finally - the MoJ has been sitting on evidence and just enabling huge numbers of claims and CCJs!

    Can't recall which page it's on but the MoJ stats that show the number of Court Claims per annum by the top 5 bulk litigators (two unnamed PPCs and three roboclaim firms) shows that the number of court claims is MUCH higher than we thought...

    ...and I guess that the one that didn't feature at all 5 years ago but now files (did I read it right?) 98,000 small claims per annum, must surely be DCBLegal?

    Thank you @Coupon-mad for highlighting those points. That last point in MoJ statistics, is that not enough for central government to realise how these claims waste the courts time, effort that could be expended else where.

    I do need to read it properly tomorrow. Registered too for the secret zoom consultation.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards