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

patient_dream

Snakes_Belly said:

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.  

I recall that VCS a few years ago beat HMRC regarding VAT
WOULD THAT HAPPEN AGAIN ?  PARKING INVOICES are sent as a service on behalf of the landowner. This is a service industry ?

All parking companies will be registered for VAT so they can claim back from their purchases etc.
And they can claim for bad debts we wonder if they class a lost court case still as a bad debt ?

HMRC must be losing millions which the treasury could use, for example the NHS. HMRC should now investigate the private parking industry.

This should not penalise the motorist ... IE the parking charge includes VAT

As far as EXCEL/VCS and their loss of the high revenue from the Berkeley Centre .... when the new independent appeals service kicks in, they will no longer have the SCAM IAS to rely on

This will be the penaly to pay for years of motorist abuse

Which parking company now operates at the Berkeley Centre

Will EXCEL also be kicked out of the Rooftop car park

Aether

Coupon-mad said:

No, this needs to be done.

The DLUHC must follow a process but TBH our input will be more relevant at the final Public Consultation stage.

For those of us who've had issues with parking companies and their solicitor friends trying to get money out of us for using our own parking spaces in contravention of the rules already laid out in a tenancy agreement, which also relates to this bit of the 2022 draft in 14.1 J:

"4. Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking restrictions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents."

Is there anything we could contribute now or at the later Public Consulation? The above from 2022 as I understand it will still stand. As far as evidence goes I could show the Tenancy Agreement that was infringed upon vs the correspondance from PCM/Gladstones. I think that would do a pretty good job in "Gathering information to better understand the industry’s current use of parking charges and debt recovery fees so that we can better understand the impacts on different operators."

In any case I've emailed the MP's office about the call for evidence and expectation of their support for measures 3 and 5 and will gladly continue to nag them as this progresses. From their own dealings with all involved they should be well aware of how absolutely chaotic things are in relation to the existing rights of tenants being ignored by the likes of PCM UK and Gladstones.

Coupon-mad

Is there anything we could contribute now or at the later Public Consultation? 

You can add photos here, as I've asked for them from all over the Country (please) to show that motorists' behaviour does not go downhill when car parks are unmanaged or adopt reasonable charges that are not 3 figures.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Just to add:

As well as asking for everyone's photos of Hospital, Tesco, Sainsburys or Aldi (or other) car parks with lower PCN values up to £70, I just thought of something else:

Other good evidence is retail car parks with NO PPC at all (clear photos and a street/town or site name location please).  

These will demonstrate that 'carmageddon' isn't a thing when retail car parks are unmanaged.

I can think of 3 locally straight away... !

I am sure lots of posters can.

Any useful

'LOW DETERRENT or NO DETERRENT' 

car park photos added to this thread in the next month WILL be used in my own submission to the DLUHC to show that 'carmageddon' isn't a real danger.

Bring on the photo evidence please and in your replies, please state at least the town, to give context.

Fruitcake

I also noted in my recent hospital visit that TPS use manned patrols as well as stating the PCN charge is £60 reduced to £30 for early payment.



Since foot patrols cost more than cheap ANPR, the profit margin is less, yet TPS run a business model at this site (W-s-M Hospital, Somerset) that must still return a profit.
This is in addition to increasing the free parking period from 30 to 40 minutes.

Previously the site was infested by UKPC who issued £100/£60 charges.

Proof that it can be done, and a small(er) company can replace one of the big guns at a reduced cost to the motorist more in keeping with options 3 and 5 of the IA.

Fruitcake

Photos of damaged/dirty signs or hidden by overgrown foliage would be useful evidence to show that PPC don't maintain their signs, therefore the current cost of maintaining them is zero to very little. This can be slipped in to responses to questions such as Q 1.5 even though it is meant only for a response from the parking operators.

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

Photos of damaged/dirty signs or hidden by overgrown foliage would be useful evidence to show that PPC don't maintain their signs, therefore the current cost of maintaining them is zero to very little. This can be slipped in to responses to questions such as Q 1.5 even though it is meant only for a response from the parking operators.

Good point again.

I will do that too.

That can be done - we aren't banned from answering a question with a ream of local photos, to show that a lot of signs are unacceptable and will need replacing anyway.

I know of one in Borehamwood which I have a photo of, too.  Completely whitewashed/sun bleached entrance sign!

PCNs up to £70 max are still painful.

Tesco and Sainsburys are that level.

Post your photos here please! State in your reply which town and site they come from. 

YankeeBrit

I was a little worried by this statement near the beginning of the "call for evidence" document:

Draft impact assessment

Who is this for:

The government is keen to ensure that any further additional evidence which is material to the impact assessment is gathered through this call for evidence, therefore responses from all interested parties are invited and welcomed.

However, this call for evidence is technical in nature and is likely to be of most interest to those involved specifically in the private parking industry who are likely to be best placed to assist the government with relevant evidence.

I feel this sentence alone is enough to show that the government is relying (far too) heavily on the bloodsucking scammers and their cartel ATAs because they believe that 'they' "are likely to be best placed to assist the government with relevant evidence".

Edited to add: After further reading, I can see why this is being stated. I just wonder how much "evidence" they are able to provide in the format requested and actually backed up.

YankeeBrit

In the draft IA, it states:

2.2.  When a driver or registered vehicle keeper is served with a parking charge (as distinct from the parking tariff payable at car parks that are not free), it is for a perceived contravention of the terms and conditions of that contract. In law, this represents an invoice for a breach of contract, which can be enforceable through the small claims court.

Should that, not state "...which can may be enforceable through the small claims court."?

Castle

YankeeBrit said:

In the draft IA, it states:

2.2.  When a driver or registered vehicle keeper is served with a parking charge (as distinct from the parking tariff payable at car parks that are not free), it is for a perceived contravention of the terms and conditions of that contract. In law, this represents an invoice for a breach of contract, which can be enforceable through the small claims court.

Should that, not state "...which can may be enforceable through the small claims court."?

In law it's not even an invoice; the clue being the "N" for Notice in "PCN"; they could have called it a "PCI" with "I" for invoice if they wanted.

A real invoice would set out what goods or services had been provided under the contract showing the VAT element, (if applicable). Penalty charges issued by Councils are not invoices.