PLEASE REPLY TO QUESTION 4 OF THE GOVERNMENT'S 'CALL FOR EVIDENCE' RE THE LEVEL OF PARKING CHARGES

Coupon-mad · 22 September 2023 at 8:17PM

Yes please to Trustpilot links here. Might focus people's minds.

Fruitcake · 22 September 2023 at 8:50PM

Post anything that will help the cause, but please also send any evidence to the DLUHC as well. It's much the same as petitions. A thousand letters requesting something be done has more impact than one letter with a thousand names.

Nellymoser · 23 September 2023 at 12:25AM

Coupon-mad said:

One more piece of evidence please.

I want to show the DLUHC proof that when a PPC passes a case to a DRA or bulk litigator, the PPC does no further work on it and washes their hands of it.

I can recall loads of threads where consumers have been told it's "too late to appeal" and "the case is now with debt recovery so you must contact them".

This is probably more something for the regulars who are ace at searching the forum, but can any of you help find such comments on threads please?

Post all thread comment links below please.

Needs to be done in September as I'm away in early October, so I will do my submission to the DLUHC this month.

@Fruitcake says more people who raise the same issue will have more impact so I'll also add and evidence it in my DLUHC response and hopefully others will include it in theirs too.

Here are links to some reviews which could be used to evidence "the case is now with debt recovery you must contact them"

https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/636f88d9b84cc27618e9bcec

https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/6407116b03e86950f1bdd2f3

https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/62d1b4064c35e69ec5105b40

https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/63caa04a9b64b1bdaf3deb1e

Coupon-mad · 23 September 2023 at 7:41PM

Two weeks left to respond.

Nellymoser · 24 September 2023 at 1:04AM

PDJAM · 24 September 2023 at 8:53AM

I'm not sure if this helps the cause but I have a case where the PPC is ignoring a request from the landowner to discontinue any legal action against a leaseholder and their visitor on a residential site. A response to Q4 was already submitted prior to this latest revelation.

Fruitcake · 24 September 2023 at 9:31AM

PDJAM said:

I'm not sure if this helps the cause but I have a case where the PPC is ignoring a request from the landowner to discontinue any legal action against a leaseholder and their visitor on a residential site. A response to Q4 was already submitted prior to this latest revelation.

You can reply as many times as you like, even to a question about which you have previously responded.

In your case there is no commercial justification for the PPC to progress with the charge. It works across several different questions as well.

Q 2, impact on small businesses. Stopping negative impact/loss of business, acting in a fair manner/complying with the CRA 2015.
Q 3, benefit to landowners and motorists. Stopping vexatious charges/claims
Q 4, behavioural change. Forcing companies to act in a reasonable way

Coupon-mad · 27 September 2023 at 12:43PM

If anyone hasn't completed your replies yet please read the stuff the Draft IA wrongly says near the end about how they used what they thought - or maybe, were told by the parking industry or their debt crawlers? - was the amount that Utility providers charge as pre-action late fees.

The DLUHC is BADLY mistaken to say that Utility Companies charge up to 31% for equivalent debt collection stage, pre-action. This is in the draft IA and it's wrong.

They look to have misunderstood what it means by 'debt recovery' and have included looking at what some big Utility firms charge after a Magistrates' Court warrant (i.e. bailiff stage, which is irrelevant).

I did some checking.

It needs more people saying this because the DLUHC has obviously either invented this idea (wrongly thinking that the phrase 'debt collection' always means pre-action, which it doesn't) or maybe the BPA or IPC suggested it's true and the DLUHC believed it?

This is what I found:

EDF Energy can charge £10 for customers with an overdue balance of £50 or more that remains unpaid 28 days after the billing date. But they told a newspaper that financially vulnerable customers, and people with certain mental and physical disabilities, are exempt from late payments.

E.ON Energy also charges £10 for a late payment.

British Gas charges customers £13 for a late payment then another £7 for passing it to a debt collector (pre-action stage).

Scottish Power charges £20 according to their t&cs.

Bulb, Octopus and M&S Energy all state in their terms and conditions that they charge £15 for the first missed payment (and potentially £20 for each missed payment after that). "But a spokesman for Octopus said the company has never charged customers fees or interest if they don't pay on time. Octopus said: "Instead of charging customers, we employ a number of different ways to engage and help customers who miss payments, and work with them to put together payment plans or payment holidays that allow them to pay their bills on their terms."

Good Energy charges customers 3% interest on bills that aren't paid after 28 days, according to their t&cs.

A number of energy providers don't have any formal charges for customers who make late payments.

Shell Energy doesn't charge customers who go into arrears due to a missed payment.

Utilita Energy doesn't charge anything either.

So Energy said it "rarely imposes" its £20 missed payment fee and has not applied it since the start of the cost of living crisis: "So Energy always seeks to engage with the customer to help them manage their payments before we apply any charges."

Please can more people do your own checks, see if you agree with me, re-read the end bit of the Draft IA to see what the DLUHC wrongly said about the 31% stat they were using, and tell them this is a mistake because that higher sum is what is charged once a case reaches bailiffs, after Magistrates' Court Warrant.

This is a major error in the Draft IA and has led to 2 out of the 5 options being unfairly calculated.

Also, comparing parking charges to utilities is like chalk & cheese and makes no sense, quite apart from the fact Utility firms are heavily regulated and can be ordered to pay compensation to consumers, etc.

Nothing like this 'light touch' regulation where a parking charge is not a debt until a court says it is. They should be comparing parking charges to other trader-consumer contract situations where the amounts in play are hundreds not thousands (e.g. like dentistry debt, plumbers and similar tradespersons). Not to Utilities and getting the figures wrong.

Coupon-mad · 2 October 2023 at 7:05PM

Just a reminder this Call for Evidence closes THIS WEEKEND.

Ed2022 · 2 October 2023 at 9:32PM

@Coupon-mad
Thank you and replied to question 4 with evidence. I hope it helps. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do.

For anyone else the deadline is the 8th October.

PLEASE REPLY TO QUESTION 4 OF THE GOVERNMENT'S 'CALL FOR EVIDENCE' RE THE LEVEL OF PARKING CHARGES

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free