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

The_Slithy_Tove

pdel61 said:

 I don't want to end up like the ridiculous increases, inflation + 3.9%, that the broadband and phone companies have.

Even here the government have finally twigged this is a rip-off and are "looking into it" (so expect minimal action for ages and ages). The telcos have zero justification for such mid-contract increases, and IMO demonstrates an inadequacy in their own abilities to hedge their own cost increases (though we know in fact it's plain price-gouging/profiteering).

Le_Kirk

I also posted this in the Parking Stories in News/Media thread: -

Only skimmed it so far but my preferred option is also 5, I can see no other option that removes completely the debt recovery fees and we all know what would happen if we chose one that allowed any level of fees, they would creep up over the years.  Cannot see why it should be higher in London as it costs the same to send a letter from wherever one is in the country and e-mail is even cheaper.  If they start talking about the higher cost of administration or car park upkeep we should point out that that cost is included in the parking ticket price and we are only talking here of PCNs.  Also how many PPCs are based in London?

We must remember that we are NOT talking about the cost of parking, the ticket that you purchase to allow you to stop in the car park, but the charge if you don't pay to park.  It is understandable if the parking fee has to increase to cover increased costs of management and maintenance (yeah right) but we should not be allowing any in-built inflation to "penalties".

Galloglass

I'm a bit lost about what this Consultation is supposed to achieve.

Firstly it's a call for evidence which suggests a multi-page, fact based explanation why Option X is preferable to Option Y. Does anyone have evidence as opposed to opinion or personal experience. Is this just a sop?

Secondly, the actual amount to be will never be right as there is a political limit to it. Since these are secondary contracts to ensure the first is not breached, logic suggests the amount should be set at a level where the PPC industry issues zero tickets as there is 100% compliance with the primary contract (to leave at the time agreed on the signs)

Thirdly, the PPC's will want a level calculated to give maximum returns and may have modelled it. They don't want 100% compliance as they want maximum profits so both sides have a common interest - a politically acceptable maximum for one side and a financial floor for PPC's to ensure they get the return they want.

Fourthly, it's the signs and the compliance to the rules the PPC's will fight. How strong are the penalties for the PPC to ensure their 100% compliance? [Difficult since they will always be able to afford the best lobbyists/lawyers]

If anyone has evidence (fact-based) now would be the time to bring it out but suspect there isn't. DLUHC will probably use this lack to put through what they want.

YankeeBrit

Galloglass said:

Fourthly, it's the signs and the compliance to the rules the PPC's will fight. How strong are the penalties for the PPC to ensure their 100% compliance? [Difficult since they will always be able to afford the best lobbyists/lawyers]

I think the point is that, with a truly independent appeals service, the ability to pursue motorists for the most minor infractions and twisted logic will disappear. Whilst they won't be penalised for non-compliance directly, their profits will be subdued by the inability to flaunt the legal process as they do now.

patient_dream

YankeeBrit said:

Galloglass said:

Fourthly, it's the signs and the compliance to the rules the PPC's will fight. How strong are the penalties for the PPC to ensure their 100% compliance? [Difficult since they will always be able to afford the best lobbyists/lawyers]

I think the point is that, with a truly independent appeals service, the ability to pursue motorists for the most minor infractions and twisted logic will disappear. Whilst they won't be penalised for non-compliance directly, their profits will be subdued by the inability to flaunt the legal process as they do now.

You are right, if the independent appeals service is run like the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, the PPC's will be in for a shock. IPC members being the most affected and so will many BPA members
The Cartel operating will come to an end

Umkomaas

The government has sufficient information at present to carry out a consultation exercise and – subject to that consultation exercise – to take a decision, but recognises that there is the potential for evidence to be improved in some areas and wishes to give interested parties the chance to help the government improve the evidence available to it. This call for evidence focuses on the draft impact assessment, which is published alongside this document4.

The government will carefully consider the responses received and will use these along with evidence already available to compile a final Impact Assessment. Consultation is then expected to be undertaken on the options for parking charges and debt recovery fees, with the final impact assessment published to ensure sufficient information is available at that point for respondents to express views on those options with awareness of the implications.

Can anyone see this being all done and dusted before the next General Election?  Seems the can has found another road to be kicked down!

Fruitcake

The questions being asked seem to be weighted towards the PPCs, who in my opinion will produce *cough* "facts and figures" to support their case, whereas Joe and Josephine (other genders are available) public will have a problem producing hard evidence as opposed to conjecture and supposition.

However, here is my attempt at quantifying and monetising the banning of DRA fees.

Only "15% of cases that go to a DRA are paid"
PCNs that go to DRA stage and are paid is just 3%

Have I got this right?
That's 15% of 3%, of the 0.3% of parking events that result in a PCN/non-compliance. That sounds like a relatively small amount to me compared with the number of charges issued.

If 15% of PCNs that go to DRA are paid, then 85% are unpaid.
Cost of debt collection = £8.42

If 100 cases go to DRAs, then: -

Cost of failed cases = 85 * £8.42 = £715.70
Profit from successful cases = 15 * (£70 - £8.42) = £923.70

Profit per100 cases = £923.70 - £715.70 = £208 = £2.08 per case.

In my opinion that is a lousy business model. It's not worth it. DRAs would be better working for say a utility provider or recovering unpaid money from tradespersons than a PPC.

Banning the debt fee would have minimal effect on the parking industry, and would only affect the DRAs, not the core business of the PPCs. 

Please check my logic. My eyes bled and my brain turned to mush after reading the IA last night.

If the new code has the effect of reducing the number of PCNs issued/non-compliance, then the 0.3% will reduce and the meagre DRA profits will also reduce. If it's not worth the effort now, then it will be even less worthwhile for DRAs to take on parking cases.


With trying to monetise the benefits of the code for motorists, I can't quantify the loss to a business if a motorist chooses not to park where a PPC operates because additional debt fees are posted on signs, but it is still a factor, at least it is where I am concerned. I would park in a car park infested by a PPC if I had no other choice, for example a hospital, if there was no DRA fee, but I would find alternative transport even to the extent of paying for a taxi rather than risk a £170 charge.

Fruitcake

4.1 
c) More generally, can you provide any additional evidence on behavioural responses to changes in parking charges and/or debt recovery fees?

Yes, it's called the buggrance factor. If a charge was £70 with a 40% discount, I might pay it if I was genuinely at fault. If it was £100 with a £70 debt collection fee I would fight it tooth and nail even if it were my fault.

In addition, if the keeper was not the driver, there is no deterrent at all.

patient_dream

Umkomaas said:

The government has sufficient information at present to carry out a consultation exercise and – subject to that consultation exercise – to take a decision, but recognises that there is the potential for evidence to be improved in some areas and wishes to give interested parties the chance to help the government improve the evidence available to it. This call for evidence focuses on the draft impact assessment, which is published alongside this document4.

The government will carefully consider the responses received and will use these along with evidence already available to compile a final Impact Assessment. Consultation is then expected to be undertaken on the options for parking charges and debt recovery fees, with the final impact assessment published to ensure sufficient information is available at that point for respondents to express views on those options with awareness of the implications.

Can anyone see this being all done and dusted before the next General Election?  Seems the can has found another road to be kicked down!

NOPE ..... and yes .... it is can kicking AGAIN.
THEY NOW WANT EVIDENCE .... for god's sake all the evidence was provided when Sir Greg Knights bill became law.  And remember, Sunak approved it ?

Now Sundak has come alive and decided he is the friend of the motorist and his motive is to rid London of Khan. Sunak has no interest in the big parking scam. 
Gove has wasted a year but he is happy to quickly turn high streets into ghost towns

Sunak has a government of old hasbeens proven to be not fit for purpose.  and he cannot expext to win the next general election and as a Tory voter , I will NOT support him whilst his government hold the public with such contempt

patient_dream

Fruitcake said:

The questions being asked seem to be weighted towards the PPCs, who in my opinion will produce *cough* "facts and figures" to support their case, whereas Joe and Josephine (other genders are available) public will have a problem producing hard evidence as opposed to conjecture and supposition.

However, here is my attempt at quantifying and monetising the banning of DRA fees.

Only "15% of cases that go to a DRA are paid"
PCNs that go to DRA stage and are paid is just 3%

Have I got this right?
That's 15% of 3%, of the 0.3% of parking events that result in a PCN/non-compliance. That sounds like a relatively small amount to me compared with the number of charges issued.

If 15% of PCNs that go to DRA are paid, then 85% are unpaid.
Cost of debt collection = £8.42

If 100 cases go to DRAs, then: -

Cost of failed cases = 85 * £8.42 = £715.70
Profit from successful cases = 15 * (£70 - £8.42) = £923.70

Profit per100 cases = £923.70 - £715.70 = £208 = £2.08 per case.

In my opinion that is a lousy business model. It's not worth it. DRAs would be better working for say a utility provider or recovering unpaid money from tradespersons than a PPC.

Banning the debt fee would have minimal effect on the parking industry, and would only affect the DRAs, not the core business of the PPCs. 

Please check my logic. My eyes bled and my brain turned to mush after reading the IA last night.

If the new code has the effect of reducing the number of PCNs issued/non-compliance, then the 0.3% will reduce and the meagre DRA profits will also reduce. If it's not worth the effort now, then it will be even less worthwhile for DRAs to take on parking cases.


With trying to monetise the benefits of the code for motorists, I can't quantify the loss to a business if a motorist chooses not to park where a PPC operates because additional debt fees are posted on signs, but it is still a factor, at least it is where I am concerned. I would park in a car park infested by a PPC if I had no other choice, for example a hospital, if there was no DRA fee, but I would find alternative transport even to the extent of paying for a taxi rather than risk a £170 charge.

Your logic is 100% correct

My eyes bled and my brain turned to mush after reading the IA last night.

ME TOO ....We have waited so long only to read this rubbish

As far as I see it, the ban on debt collectors will stop harrassment whereby people get scared and pay. The debt collectors in the parking industry are only back street traders and not fit to chase debts that are real, like banks or utility companies. 

What evidence do these fools require, does not Gove AND HIS UNDERLINGS understand the parking industry is the UK's biggest scam and it's headed off by the BPA and IPC and the BPA council of representatives ... the Cartel

I think that people in the UK, should strongly tell their Tory MP "YOU ARE OUT" unless your leader get's his act together .....