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

Coupon-mad

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.

Brie

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??

pdel61

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

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.

pdel61

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

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

YankeeBrit 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.

pdel61

Ed2022 said:

YankeeBrit 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

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

Coupon-mad

Although this stage questions are not asking respondents for their preferred option out of the 5 given, there are some VERY useful nuggets in the analysis and I've made the following notes:

4.31 

Actual cost of debt recovery per recovery case is apparently over seven times less than the £70 that the self-serving CoPs enable their members to pay (and earlier the DLUHC say that the BPA told them that this cap was set by the AOS members and DRAs themselves).

5.19

Cost of debt recovery - per case not per PCN us approx £8.42 - here the DLUHC actually says it's around 'eight times less' than the £70 that the self-serving CoPs enable their members to pay.

This includes a purported £1.50 that the DLUHC analysis (at 7.9) states that industry evidence has shown is the total cost (known to include actual outlay of a mere 29p being paid to Credit Reference Agencies in bulk per 'recovery stage' case - not per PCN). The rest is at best, the minor cost of the wholly automated system used by DRAs to churn data through a CRA portal.

Why do QDR & CEL add £12 as well as £70 then?  If it actually costs some ten times less than £82?

7.39

Only "15% of cases that go to a DRA are paid"!  This is a revelation that PROVES the added £70 is what stops people from paying.

85% of recipients of threatograms are NOT paying once the case is inflated - quite right - (but this includes those not address traced, and the Code will being those cases back to square one appeal/pay at original PCN rate).

Are ParkingEye going to be honest enough - as the industry leaders - to show the DLUHC their own 'success' stats at final reminder/LBCCC stage (from the many years when they were not adding the new +£20), which we know are FAR better than 15% paid?

In fact they could show their in-house 'paid at DRA/LBC stage' success rate as opposed to those cases that they farm out to DCB Legal or DR Plus.  IF THEY REALLY WANT TO HELP...

9.8

Industry info has told the DLUHC that It costs just under £11 to issue a PCN so after the (one-off) car park ANPR system and signage set up costs are covered, after the first few weeks of operation - apart from ongoing electricity & minor back-office running costs and money paid to regular suppliers like ZatPark for the PCN software - the rest is profit.

Except in cases with extra minor costs such as a soft trace (£1.50) and where further automated boilerplate letters (either raised 'in-house' or from a DRA) are issued or where a PCN needs to be re-issued due to a new address.  A few quid (and of course, costs of appeals must not be passed on to consumers and are a standard cost already absorbed by the industry).

Thus even at the lowest proposed rates of £50 (option 3) or £70 (option 5) there is significant room for the true DRA 'costs' of c£8.42 (per recovery CASE, not per PCN...) to be easily covered by the PCN full rate, not added to it. 

And given that at least a third of recovery cases are multi-PCNs (in fact I think DRPLUS said it's nearer 40% in Parking News) the cost of recovery at £8.42 per case is minuscule compared with 'multi-PCN case' totals which will always be 3 figures (and often high 3 figures).

There's no justified case to add a fee on top.  The Judge in ParkingEye v Somerfield was correct in his analysis

9.20(c) and the table below it:

% of PCNs that go to DRA stage and are paid is just 3% thus banning DRA fees would have a minimal effect on revenues within the industry and it is highly likely that this would be balanced by the following benefit:

Far more people than 15% would pay at this stage, if the PCN had not been inflated and the intimidation element was removed (e.g. cases recovered in-house at full PCN rate, after just one or two polite non-increased reminders that make it very clear that the case will go to small claims, incurring extra cost, if it remains unpaid).

Countless news articles support that the 85% of people NOT paying at DRA stage include people of principle who are refusing because the PCN was unfair and/or it was not received, and they object to the amount having been increased disproportionately.  Where the PCN itself is not actually disputed and merely remains unpaid due to the keeper not knowing about it, they invariably say they would have paid the PCN sum, had they known.

The Code will address those cases by rewinding back to PCN stage so the 85% unpaid will definitely reduce. 

That is indisputable fact because the industry's own figures show that 40% of PCNs are paid at the discount (think I remembered that right).  So when PCNs are re-served to people who didn't receive them, one can assume that the % if folk who will then pay (or appeal) will mirror the stats the DLUHC already knows about consumer behaviour on receipt of a private PCN at stage one.

10.12

This makes the following good observation,  that venues may well be better monetised (from the retailer or hotel or beach landowner POV) in places that invite custom:

"Improved standards may improve private car park usage as drivers will not be deterred by concerns that they will receive unfair treatment".

Page 89

Says that the 'newspaper article analysis' was informed by a 'website' - that'll be  ongoing 'Parking cases in the News/Media' thread on MSE by our very own @Half_way

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?

Ed2022

Coupon-mad said:

…………

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.