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

RedDragonHpc

Coupon-mad said:

There was no template, but it has closed now, at 11.59pm (it says this in the Call for Evidence).

I sent a few emails of evidence and am happy that I did what I could.

Also very happy that LOTS of people here did the same.  It all helps.  Also every picture on this thread will be possibly looked at by the DLUHC as I explained why this signage evidence is powerful in demonstrating several things.

So I think they will analyse it, like the draft IA says they did Half_Way's 'Parking in the News/Media' thread.

So presumably it's still worth posting some more photos of bad practice for a few more days?

Humdinger1

When do we expect feedback from the enquiry @Coupon-mad?

Jenni_D

C-m may know better, but I'd be surprised if we hear anything this year.

Coupon-mad

Humdinger1 said:

When do we expect feedback from the enquiry @Coupon-mad?

I hope by the end of this year.

The plan is for the DLUHC to produce a final IA and a final Public Consultation.  They have a team of staff on this project.

RedDragonHpc

TL;DR: Faced with irrefutable evidence that this site had badly marked yellow lines so the driver could not tell that he was not actually parked in a genuine parking bay, UKPC and their agents pursued him for over 6 years causing unnecessary anxiety and wasted time. The court claim was discontinued just before the court papers were due to be submitted.

---

Hopefully this evidence is not too late for the DLUHC.

Here's a quiz for the DLUHC: Can you spot the yellow lines in these photos? 

No, neither can I. 

This is Waterside Way, Northampton NN4 7XD 04-08/08/2017. The first two photos were taken by a UKPC staff member when issuing the PCN. The third is my high-resolution photo zoomed right in to the road surface, and if you look really carefully you might be able to see a few stones in the tarmac that appear slightly yellow. This is all that remains of the highly worn out yellow painted lines. This can hardly be described as a clearly marked parking deterrent. Subsequently I (and other motorists) believed that this was a valid parking bay (that were allowed and present at this site in 2017).

I explained this example of badly marked roadways and parking bays to UKPC, and faced with their own and my photographic evidence, what did they do? Honourably concede my point? No! They ignored my perfectly sound argument and continued to pursue a pointless request for payment for allegedly breaking their parking terms. I made it clear to UKPC that I would not be paying an unjust payment and would fight them all the way to court if necessary.

Their totally unnecessary action went all the way to a court claim hearing that was scheduled for November 2023. Less than 2 weeks before the court papers were due to be submitted, they discontinued the claim.

Prior to this they had:

• Ignored my first written refusal to pay their payment in 2017.
• Ignored my second written refusal to pay in 2017. I also suggested that they should save their own time and money as I would not pay a charge that I didn't owe.
• The official appeal service POPLA refused my appeal in 2018, even though I had valid points. They even cited irrelevant facts to claim that I was incorrectly parked.
• Ignored my detailed explanation of the facts post-POPLA showing the strength of my case against their unjust parking charge. They also ignored my suggestion to save their own time and money.
• Sent numerous (12 or more) letters and multiple "Final Chance to Pay Letters" via multiple debt collectors during 2018. These letters I ignored.
• Ignored my reiteration of my strong case to another debt collector who contacted me in 2021. Again I urged them to save their own time and money.
• Ignored the strength of my defence statement submitted in February 2023.

Why did they wait all this time before ceasing action? It was obvious to UKPC that I would not voluntarily pay their parking charge. So they have ended up wasting their own time and money, my time, and seriously abusing the court system.

Cynical action like this should not be allowed. The appeal service should be truly neutral, and it should prevent speculative action from continuing when the motorist's defence is sound.

Snakes_Belly

Sent my response off on the 6th October.

Discussed the options and IMO option 3 was the only real option with certain caveats regarding residential and BB holders.

I mentioned Lichfield in some detail and that the MP Michael Fabricant was fully aware of the situation.

Mentioned that any debt collection should be subject to regulation by the FCA.

With regard to the comments from the PPC's that certain options are not viable said to take a look at the published accounts and the level of dividends that the directors are taking.  £532,109.00 paid in dividends at Excel. Some levelling up is needed there. That does not include salaries.

Tax on dividends is lower than on salaries.

Annual income	Dividend tax rate
Personal allowance	Up to 12,570	0%
Basic rate	Over 12,570 to 50,270	8.75%
Higher rate	Over 50,270 to 125,140	33.75%
Additional rate	Over 125,140	39.35%

patient_dream

RedDragonHpc said:

Why did they wait all this time before ceasing action? It was obvious to UKPC that I would not voluntarily pay their parking charge. So they have ended up wasting their own time and money, my time, and seriously abusing the court system.

Get in touch with YOUR MP to ask the MoJ to investigate the DCBL timewasters and the SRA who seem to turn a blind eye
Of course DCBL abuse the courts because the MoJ make it easy for them to do so with Robo Claims.

At best they should be sanctioned, even better ... lose their licence to operate as they are not fit for purpose

RedDragonHpc

Good idea @patient_dream - sounds like an excellent task for our new MP following next week's by-election!

Nellymoser

Found this consultation response from the Civil Court Users Association to Q4.5 

https://ccua.org.uk/ccua-consultation-response-private-parking-charges-and-debt-recovery-fees-call-for-evidence/

and another response from the Registry Trust Ltd. I'd never heard of this Registry Trust. For anyone else who hasn't their role is to maintain the official statutory public Register of Judgments, Orders, and Fines on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. 

https://www.registry-trust.org.uk/news/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence/

The CCUA's response appears to lack any evidence to support their opinion that debt recovery fees prevents legal action and neither seem to recognise motorists only option for a fair and impartial hearing is court. 

1505grandad

Say no more:-

Rob Thompson CCUA Chair

https://www.brachers.co.uk/our-people/robert-thompson#:~:text=In 2020 he was elected,the interests of court users.