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

Nellymoser

Umkomaas said:

Coupon-mad said:

https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/question/202904/parking-private-sector

Questioner Greg Knight  (Conservative - East Yorkshire)

Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:

To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, if he will outline his planned timetable for the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 impact assessment, in the context of the closure of the private parking code of practice call for evidence on 8 October 2023.

---

Answered by

Jacob Young 
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)

This question was answered on 20th October 2023

The Call for Evidence closed on 8 October and officials are now working through the submissions. The intention is to publish the Impact Assessment together with a consultation on options for handling parking charges and debt recovery fees, to make sure that the consultation is as well informed as it can be.

The Government will publish a response to the Call for Evidence in due course.

I thank him for his continued support on this issue and for his work in steering the legislation through the house. We will implement it in full at the earliest possible moment.

But will that be before the General Election, especially if it's called early?  And if that does come first, I wonder what Labour will do if what now seems a somewhat foregone conclusion happens?

Like Greg Knight MP I too have received (x 2) this frequently used "publish in due course" reply statement from this Government Dept. I have to say I find it immensely irritating and completely useless. Surely Depts set time frames for the completion of tasks. A more useful and encouraging statement would be to provide the planned date. The year might be a good idea too!!! 

During my last read of the IA for my responses I noticed this statement at the bottom of Page 26/27
"The Government will carry out a full Equalities Impact Assessment on the Code when the decisions on parking charge levels and debt recovery fees are made, before re-laying the Code in Parliament".
It doesn't say but will a consultation be needed on that Equalities IA or maybe it will be included in the final consultation on the government decided charge levels and debt fees. 

TomOrrow

1505grandad said:

Hopefully their Snoredships will not be involved any further as I get the impression that they were well involved in pushing for the IA:-

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5802/ldselect/ldsecleg/171/17104.htm

"Draft Private Parking Code of Practice

Date laid: 7 February 2022"

Clearly it would be surprising if some inputs from the red benches are not influenced by the industry given precedence. However ferreting out the relevant declarations isn't easy.

What didn't surprise me was the extract below from the linked report.

Lack of Engagement
25.Euro Car Park criticised that Ministers had not engaged with the industry and that despite many requests, there had “not been a single meeting” with Ministers. Euro Car Park said that this did “not properly reflect the importance of private parking or the impact which the proposals will have”

Perhaps that was learned behaviour from the two faced industry.
Wrexham; Euro Car Parks Cancel Island Green Meeting
https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/23619898.wrexham-euro-car-parks-cancel-island-green-meeting/

patient_dream

Another thought .... are the Tories going to drag this out knowing they will lose to Labour ... and pass the buck ??

If Labour wins, it will be Angela Rayner who will be in charge of levelling up and unlike the hapless Gove, she is at least on the side of the public

It also seems that dozens of Tory MP's are sending no confidence letters regarding Sunak

We do NOT need another timewasting consultation when all the facts show that the private parking industry is a SCAM

Coupon-mad

TomOrrow said:

1505grandad said:

Hopefully their Snoredships will not be involved any further as I get the impression that they were well involved in pushing for the IA:-

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5802/ldselect/ldsecleg/171/17104.htm

"Draft Private Parking Code of Practice

Date laid: 7 February 2022"

Clearly it would be surprising if some inputs from the red benches are not influenced by the industry given precedence. However ferreting out the relevant declarations isn't easy.

What didn't surprise me was the extract below from the linked report.

Lack of Engagement
25.Euro Car Park criticised that Ministers had not engaged with the industry and that despite many requests, there had “not been a single meeting” with Ministers. Euro Car Park said that this did “not properly reflect the importance of private parking or the impact which the proposals will have”

Perhaps that was learned behaviour from the two faced industry.
Wrexham; Euro Car Parks Cancel Island Green Meeting
https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/23619898.wrexham-euro-car-parks-cancel-island-green-meeting/ 

Good point well made.

...and yes, they have to do a final Public Consultation alongside the actual IA (Equalties get considered as part of the published IA so that's thankfully not something extra).

The DLUHC have no choice. There will be a final Consultation based on the final options (which may differ slightly from the draft options, depending on what the Call for Evidence shows them).

Because they will likely differ, IMHO, after this CforE, they HAVE to consult on the final options.

They have to be seen to do everything right this time. It'll get there before the GE (I hope!).

They were naive before and my clear impression is that the scales have fallen from their eyes due to the conduct and greed of the industry since 2021/2022.

We all saw it played out in public with a ludicrous £19.5 billion impact statement (BPA) and Trace Debt aggressively pushing the ICO to a Tribunal that forced the DLUHC to reveal a load of 'advice' (that turned out to be typical IPC twaddle) and, of course, more than one JR.

Greed. They are blinded by it.

They should have 'stuck' not twisted in early 2021, when they had the then 'MHCLG' deluded over 'debt fees at £70' which would have effectively made every PCN £120 - £200 'under the contract' and able to be recovered without legal interference (not even a test of fairness) by any Judge in court...

 ...but they didn't, hahaha!!

And because they didn't take what they had in the bag, and the MHCLG then stalled the Code and revealed a terrible plan in a Public Consultation (that PPC World forced) in 2021, the good guys & gals on the Steering Group - and some very angry MPs and LOTS OF motorists - were able to respond. And the Government thought again.

No doubt PPC World will try a 'last hoorah' of another JR but if the DLUHC nail everything down in these months then that JR won't get off the ground.

It's not over till it's over but this has proved one heck of a bun-fight to be involved in!

Nellymoser

patient_dream said:

Another thought .... are the Tories going to drag this out knowing they will lose to Labour ... and pass the buck ??

If Labour wins, it will be Angela Rayner who will be in charge of levelling up and unlike the hapless Gove, she is at least on the side of the public

It also seems that dozens of Tory MP's are sending no confidence letters regarding Sunak

We do NOT need another timewasting consultation when all the facts show that the private parking industry is a SCAM

It's not really in the Tories best interests to drag the implementation of the Code out. Millions of voting motorists would see them as a failure just like the private parking industry. And should the opportunity fall to Labour I think they would be happy to have this buck passed and show the millions of voting motorists they can achieve where the Tories failed. 

patient_dream

Nellymoser said:

patient_dream said:

Another thought .... are the Tories going to drag this out knowing they will lose to Labour ... and pass the buck ??

If Labour wins, it will be Angela Rayner who will be in charge of levelling up and unlike the hapless Gove, she is at least on the side of the public

It also seems that dozens of Tory MP's are sending no confidence letters regarding Sunak

We do NOT need another timewasting consultation when all the facts show that the private parking industry is a SCAM

It's not really in the Tories best interests to drag the implementation of the Code out. Millions of voting motorists would see them as a failure just like the private parking industry. And should the opportunity fall to Labour I think they would be happy to have this buck passed and show the millions of voting motorists they can achieve where the Tories failed. 

I totally agree with you  but I doubt this would be a big vote loser for the Tories, they have far too many problems which has affected people, much more than parking tickets

I have spoken to many people and so many have never heard of the new code, yet alone the scam. Of course they read the newspapers which alerts them to the scam but if they have never had a parking ticket and all the rubbish that goes with it, millions of people are oblivious. 

I am a Tory voter, at least I was, no more, they are a shambles and with the current ministers including Sunak, they are no longer fit for purpose. I consider the Dept for levelling up the weakest link and whilst I understand they want to avoid another JR,  they have dragged their heels for far too long, letting the motorist down for years and so they carry on with consultation after consultation which could well spill over to a new government.

If Labour do win which seems very likely, it will be Angela Rayner who takes up the fight and in my opinion she is far better qualified than the hapless Gove
Remember, Boris got rid of Gove and Sunak brought him back

As I said, I agree with you and whilst no doubt they will lose votes because of the parking scam, it will not be the main reason why the Tories will lose.
Maybe the election will come earlier than expected as MP's are registering their letters of no confidence

Again, in my opinion, if you have a Tory MP, Tthe facts should be sent to them as they will already be scared of losing their jobs and as we saw the other week, even the safest seat is now up for grabs

Coupon-mad

Thanks to @pinkelephant12 for finding this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6481628/justice-committee-inquiry-into-the-county-court

Even though the parking CfE is closed, this one is open until early December.

People who win their cases or have discontinuances should be urged to use their meritless case paperwork and woeful Particulars of Claim as evidence to change the future landscape to stop bulk litigation of parking claims.

THIS MOJ CFE IS IMPORTANT FOR REGULARS AND THISE WITH EXPERIENCE OF A COURT CLAIM OR CCJ TO DO.  EVIDENCE NOT OPINION.

GrannyKate

As regular posters may have gathered I am interested in the data protection aspects of this topic so did a couple of FOIA requests to ICO related to automated processing leading to CCJs by default.  They will eventually appear on ICO list but the gist of these would suggest a lack of engagement to date on whether this process falls foul of UK GDPR and DPA 2018.  Probably needs someone who actually got a CCJ this way to complain to parking Company and MOJ about potential breach of legislation.

Case Reference: IC-260988-T6L5
 
Question: “The MOJ conducted a consultation in early 2018 entitled- Default County CourtJudgments: A Consultation on ensuring the process works fairly, for both creditors and debtors. The outcome has never been published despite a date of May 2018 being given

Please could you supply all comments or evidence that the ICO may have contributed bearing in mind that a key factor had been concerns about the use of automated systems by private parking companies to obtain default CCJs.”

Answer:

I have consulted with the relevant areas of the ICO and I can confirm that we do not hold information in scope of this request.

Case reference: IC-260990-C2J0

Question: In September 2023 the ICO responded to a FOIA request for information on data protection complaints concerning a number of private parking companies. ICO case reference – IC-251424-Q7T2 (actually should have been IC-252544-Q7T2 but link wrong on ICO site)

The response confirmed that since April 2020 you have received 157 complaints about the named companies. Your response confirmed that in 39 cases the ICO had contacted the data controllers with various issues about the handling of personal data and provided advice to them.

Please can you provide anonymised information on whether any of these complaints related to the use of automated systems resulting in default County Court Judgments being issued in parking cases and if so, what guidance was given as to whether (and why) this process was compliant or non compliant withArticle 22 (1) UK GDPR.”

Answer:

We can confirm we do not hold information within scope of your request.Searches were conducted on the 39 data protection complaints where the outcome category was ‘informal action taken’.

In the description of the complaint provided to us by the complainant, none were about the use of automated systems resulting in default County Court Judgments (CCJs) being issued in parking cases. As a result, none of the letters to the data controllers on these cases contained guidance on this issue.

Coupon-mad

As regular posters may have gathered I am interested in the data protection aspects of this topic so did a couple of FOIA requests to ICO related to automated processing leading to CCJs by default.  They will eventually appear on ICO list but the gist of these would suggest a lack of engagement to date on whether this process falls foul of UK GDPR and DPA 2018.

That's very interesting.

On my to-do list is a formal complaint to the MOJ about exactly that: the fact that the MCOL system makes automated decisions with zero human intervention.

Another FOI reply on WhatDoTheyKnow that I found from the CCBC admitted in black & white that there is "no human involvement".

Can't find it again now - anyone?

Since I discovered that the process for getting a default CCJ involves the Claimant controlling it all and merely pressing a button (which shocked me) I'm keen to raise a complaint that this AI system breaches the DPA 2018.

Especially as the MoJ has known for years that parking firms are a main part of the default CCJ problem and that they use old addresses, which breaches both CoPs and breaches the PD and CPRs.

I expect someone like @Harvez63 and/or @LionsShare would be happy for the complaint to be done 'on their behalf' as they suffered huge detriment from this process.

This Uber case from this year seems to support my view that the 'default judgment' button on MCOL might be unlawful because there's no human check involved and the potential for consumer harm is high:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5a54b39c-1225-493d-a125-1c85918b05ed

The Disclosure Team, Ministry of Justice, say:

"you have the right to not be subjected to automated decision-making"

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/about/personal-information-charter

Umkomaas

Another FOI reply on WhatDoTheyKnow that I found from the CCBC admitted in black & white that there is "no human involvement".

Can't find it again now - anyone?

This one?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_country_court_buisness_centr_2#incoming-2173662