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

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

Yes they have. 

If they have, when do you think the IPC WILL BE STRIPPED OF ATA STATUS

Coupon-mad

Not yet.  No reason to - but the BPA and IPC will be scrutinised as you know.  Neither can be complacent.

Galloglass

Not sure if this has been picked up elsewhere but it's a Consultation that would be relevant to many.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/including-claimant-data-on-the-register-of-judgments-orders-and-fines/including-claimant-data-on-the-register-of-judgments-orders-and-fines

Coupon-mad

Galloglass said:

Not sure if this has been picked up elsewhere but it's a Consultation that would be relevant to many.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/including-claimant-data-on-the-register-of-judgments-orders-and-fines/including-claimant-data-on-the-register-of-judgments-orders-and-fines

Thankyou - had not seen it and we must all respond and support that proposal.

I would add that it doesn't go far enough and the name of any legal firm acting should also appear, this would help for scrutiny purposes, e.g. regulators of parking charges can monitor the tsunami of bulk litigation and the way it is ruining the small claims track by using and abusing it.

There should also be monitoring of the numbers of set asides by type of claim (parking ones are a massive £multi million problem) The names of Claimants and bulk litigators responsible for causing 'bulk default CCJs' against consumers should be in the public domain for regulators, consumers, MPs, debt advice and motoring groups to see.

Parking claims should have their own check digit added to the claim number to isolate them statistically.  Could be as simple as adding a P.  

Or even a pilot scheme to make parking claimant legally represented litigators use a different portal, like damages claims do.  That would isolate them very well for statistical scrutiny.

Further, it would help people with default CCJs if their own case 'Particulars of Claim' were more easily and immediately viewable by them (not in public on the register though) rather than having to ring up the CNBC and waste everyone's time, piecemeal, for every CCJ set aside case.

AND it should not cost £275 to apply to set aside a private parking claim. Could be automatically sent to the Single Appeals Service ADR to review, not sent to a Judge.

UncleThomasCobley

The law change would have the following benefits"

Provide regulators, policy makers, academics and debt advisors with information about claimant behaviour which may inform their regulatory activity or policy decisions. 

Whilst not exclusively PPC judgments, the numbers are still staggering:

In 2022 there were just over 874,000 judgments of which 814,250 were issued in default.   

Over 93% of claims result in a default judgment! Wow! Can anyone remember the number of PPC claims that we managed to extrapolate from the DLUHC IA data?

Submitted. Very easy to complete online at Answer these questions online

Coupon-mad

The DLUHC could not be sure of numbers because the MoJ couldn't tell them!

We estimate half a million in 2023.

Well over a quarter and quite possibly nearly a third of all small claims. 

Wigwamfan

Coupon-mad said:

Regardless of whom I might (or might not) have faith in, I am constantly reassured by the fact I'm involved and still pushing the issues that we know are important.

There are regular meetings even now.

So it gives me faith because they are still listening to me.  Can't tell you how fulfilling that work has been and continues to be!

I know that, without one of us 'parking gurus' in the group, PPC World would have got away with loads, despite other good organisations representing motorists.

We all need to do this latest MPs' Call for Evidence about the county courts and point this Committee in the right direction.

Keep up your amazing work, Coupon mad 💪. Please stay involved & continue to represent the victims of these corrupt cowboy PPCs.I imagine it must get tiresome at times but rest assured people are watching the work you are doing & are so grateful 👍

pinkelephant12

Coupon-mad said:

There is much for us (including any Newbies who have experienced a CCJ or parking roboclaim) to provide evidence on.

But it smacks of "shutting the door after the bulk litigation horses have bolted" (because it is primarily parking 'roboclaims' that have caused this, right under the noses of the MoJ):

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is; the extent of any regional variations; and the effect of delays on litigants and the administration of justice

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The condition of the court estate, and its effect on the work of the County Court

• The use of technology in the County Court and how it could be used to improve the service provided by the County Court

•  The effect of the court reform programme on the County Court, including the new Online Civil Money Claims service and the Damages Claims service

• The current level of fees and the approach taken to costs in the County Court, and how the fees collected are used as part of the current funding arrangements for the County Court

• Whether there is sufficient judicial capacity in the County Court, and current steps to improve judicial capacity

• Whether there is sufficient staffing of the County Court

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• The current procedural mechanisms used by the County Court to resolve disputes

• The quality of data available on the work of the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

The deadline for submitting evidence to the Justice Committee has been extended to 22nd December at 23.59 for anyone who hasn't got round to responding yet.

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/

Coupon-mad

Nothing will change if people don't seize this one-off Inquiry opportunity, and the good thing is, the Government is already actively finalising regulating the parking industry so change can happen in 2024 to the court process and the pre-action protocol, as part of the Framework already slotting into place.

The Justice Committee are not necessarily expecting submissions about parking cases.
I reckon these would not have been on their radar when they opened this Inquiry.

We need to show them what's happening.

All they know is that there are horrific delays in the County courts - which is why we need to send them responses that tells them EXACTLY which industry is causing it.

The CNBC appear clueless and are sending out emails saying they intend to EXPAND their service to 'meet the needs of our customers' instead of waking up and smelling the coffee!

Deadline extended till 17th January...

Yay!

The more evidence of parking claims wasting court time, the better.

This inquiry is currently accepting evidence

The committee wants to hear your views. We welcome submissions from anyone with answers to the questions in the call for evidence. You can submit evidence until Wednesday 17 January 2024

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/

Galloglass

Don't forget to read what the 'other side' has said about the work of the County Court. You can frame any response in light of their approach.

https://ccua.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CCUA-response-to-the-Justice-Committee-Enquiry-on-the-work-of-the-County-Courts-2023-final.pdf