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

YankeeBrit

Snakes_Belly said:

Is there any mention in the code of when the speculative invoice becomes a debt?

I think it only becomes a "debt" when a judge says it is.

Nellymoser

Here's the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association opinion on debt fees :

"The BVRLA will be looking to ensure that if debt recovery fees are allowed, they should be reasonable and only charged in genuine debt recovery circumstances, not when documentation between a BVRLA member and private parking operator has been ignored or mislaid."

https://www.bvrla.co.uk/resource/call-for-evidence-private-parking-industry.html

Coupon-mad

Nellymoser said:

Here's the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association opinion on debt fees :

"The BVRLA will be looking to ensure that if debt recovery fees are allowed, they should be reasonable and only charged in genuine debt recovery circumstances, not when documentation between a BVRLA member and private parking operator has been ignored or mislaid."

https://www.bvrla.co.uk/resource/call-for-evidence-private-parking-industry.html

Good find!

The DLUHC do need to state exactly when 'debt recovery' is deemed to start because it's not when a NTK has had no reply.  It doesn't immediately morph into a debt and I don't think it should until AFTER a soft trace and/or after the 2 mandatory letters the BPA require.

I am worried we are losing that stage...

The BPA CoP requires a mandatory two more reminders (para 24 of the BPA CoP) BEFORE the case can go to the motley crew of the DRA money-grabbing limpets.

Galloglass

When does "debt" become debt? Not directly relevant to this area but sometimes they will read over decisions in one area of law to another. Key case is Doyle v PRA Ltd which tried to fix the start date of debt so the could interpret the effect of the Limitations Act. One that might pop up especially when it comes to applying the 6 year rule.

https://goughsq.co.uk/doyle-v-pra-limitation-and-debt-claims/

ukcpm_canSMD

Coupon-mad said:

They haven't re-published the Code at this stage but no other clauses were challenged, so they atand.

Great, so the bit about trying to penalise residents that have a permit but don't display it will still be there. that should cut some blood supply from the vamps.

Fruitcake

Evidence that a PPC has a business model that can turn a profit with a £60 charge reduced to £30 for early payment.

TPS, Weston-super-Mare Hospital.

Snakes_Belly

Did anyone ever find ascertain whether the PPC's were paying VAT on the debt recovery charges?  

It will be interesting to see what the pipeline of outstanding claims looks like when the new CoP comes into force. If the single tier appeals service is much fairer then the pipeline should be a lot smaller.  

Snakes_Belly

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-finance-manual/vatfin3255

VAT is payable on debt collection services. Excel were adding on £60.00 when using DRP and Zenith on a no collection, no fee basis. In my case I was chased by DRP and Zenith and at the time DRP where advertising their services as on a no collection, no fee basis. £60.00 was still added on to the claim and had the judge found in favour of Excel which he did (technically) I could have been paying the £60.00. That £60.00 would have been for debt collection but no monies would have gone to a debt collector that would have gone into SRS's coffers.  

Snakes_Belly

I don't know if this has been posted already. I bet that there are quite a few drivers in Sheffield who have fallen foul of Excel and VCS.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/government-urges-sheffield-drivers-hit-by-unfair-and-costly-parking-charges-to-come-forward-4244035?fbclid=IwAR0gWX1wIfV51mZMGs86xa7No0UZlmSG-t_ckCwkO6Vwo4F2awmD2lyU_24

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

Evidence that a PPC has a business model that can turn a profit with a £60 charge reduced to £30 for early payment.

TPS, Weston-super-Mare Hospital.

That picture and others like it are great evidence for the Call for Evidence.

We need people to show that parking and similar 'consumer error or oversight' deterrents don't need to be high in terms of money, just clearly stated and with a high likelihood of repercussions.

This isn't about deterring deliberate conduct.

Here's a photo (BELOW) that I took in Oxford this Summer when we were at a graduation.  Nice large writing, clear message and £25 penalty 'excess charge' considered sufficient even to deter mooring where prohibited.

Can everyone who wants to give evidence (even if you just answer the ONE vital DLUHC question about consumer behaviour & optimal non-excessive deterrents) please find more evidence photos local to them?

Please gather more photos everyone!  If you post them here I'll link this thread in my own submission, for the DLUHC to see.