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 number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).

Parking Code evidence - pictures of signs with £50, £60 or £70 PCN and no £ DRA fee on the sign

Coupon-mad
Coupon-mad Posts: 149,388 Forumite
Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
This thread started life as a discussion about the DLUHC's Call for Evidence but EDITED MAY 2025:

Let's kick this off again in 2025 as evidence for the 'new' MHCLG.

I'm looking for:

- signs where the PCN is £50/£60/£70

- signs that don't quantify the DRA fee as a stated sum in large lettering.

If you take photos yourself, please show them as a screenshot to show the date a photo was taken) or with that metadata embedded.

It Is important that we aren't accused of showing old photos.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
«13456791

Comments

  • Brie
    Brie Posts: 14,252 Ambassador
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    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’m a Forum Ambassador and I support the Forum Team on Debt Free Wannabe and Old Style Money Saving boards.  If you need any help on these boards, do let me know. Please note that Ambassadors are not moderators. Any posts you spot in breach of the Forum Rules should be reported via the report button, or by emailing forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. All views are my own and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.

    "Never retract, never explain, never apologise; get things done and let them howl.”  Nellie McClung
    ⭐️🏅😇
  • pdel61
    pdel61 Posts: 986 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper 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: 149,388 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    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 or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • pdel61
    pdel61 Posts: 986 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper 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
    100 Posts Photogenic 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
    100 Posts First Anniversary 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: 986 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper 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: 3,877 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary 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
    100 Posts First Anniversary 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

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 597.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.5K Life & Family
  • 256.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.