'PCN NOW CANCELLED' data privacy & complaints NPC Group, DCB Legal, DVLA, IPC, ICO & MP

Thorndorise

That's what I thought, email is already written - I've asked her politely to make sure she doesn't become a mouthpiece for the 'menace' industry by purporting that the new code is the governments!!!

I have already included the RAC article, and have asked her & my MP to make sure they keep pushing and raise this issue at every opportunity (as they have clearly misunderstood)!!

Thank you

Thorndorise

Good news, well sort of anyway...

Case worker came back to me almost straight away with this....

"Thanks a lot for letting me know.  I will email House of Commons research team to find out the latest and will get back to you."

Brief, but to the point - will keep you posted on latest once they come back (probably nothing not already known but hey - we'll see).

LDast

You may want to point out that there are several unlawful statements in the "Joint" CoP. A glaringly obvious one, to us, is the following:

Annexe C where it states:

NOTE: The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer. Where a keeper or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver when requested to, it may be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or refusal.

It is worrying to see in that original response from the case worker how easily the decision makers can be fooled by the well funded ATAs into believing that their self-serving joint CoP is somehow what the actual COP is going to become.

Le_Kirk

Thorndorise said:

On 1 October the statutory code of parking will come into force, with all existing sites to be updated by end of 2026. 

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

Bit of a clue in the URL of the statutory code being British Parking!

Nellymoser

Coupon-mad said:

OMG that caseworker is COMPLETELY WRONG:

"On 1 October the statutory code of parking will come into force, with all existing sites to be updated by end of 2026."

NO IT WILL NOT.

You need to reply and tell them the 1st Oct joint code IS ABSOLUTELY CATEGORICALLY NOT THE STATUTORY CODE.  It is a sneaky interim tactic by the menace parking industry, timed and designed to fool the public and the press!

Articles about it:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/new-private-parking-code-to-launch-in-the-uk-later-this-year/

https://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/national/uk-today/24414465.aa-rac-warning-new-private-parking-code-conduct/

The DLUHC (now MHCLG) responded at the time that this is not the statutory Code which will still be coming in.

Quite concerning MP caseworker thought the APAs code was the Govt code. Seems @Protest in his Reviving the private parking bill thread is right when he said "many new MPs are novices. They may need briefing/educating" and as your experience showed so do MPs caseworkers.

We should all Include these links @Coupon-mad provided when writing to our MPs about the Govt code (as you did). It's a way of ensuring MPs and their team are aware of the facts and know which code is which.

Be interesting to hear caseworkers next reply.

Thorndorise

And as if by magic - they very kindly have come back to me....(and as promised)...

Dear xxxx

Again, much appreciated.   I had intended sending a question to House of Commons Research team to find out the latest, but I see that a question was submitted on 19 July 2024:  

Q. Is the government going to regulate ‘cowboy’ parking enforcement companies?

A. Yes, it is going to hold private parking enforcement companies to a statutory Code of Practice with accompanying sanctions if they breach it. We do not yet know when it will come into force.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8736/ (this is just the July FAQ)

You were absolutely right in telling me that the Code published on BPA website was  ‘misleading’ and I’m sorry that I fell for it.

I will try asking a Q in a different way.

Back in touch in due course.

Best wishes, 


Really nice that they both acknowledge their 'falling for it' (and lets be honest, exactly the industry's aim), and that they'll follow it up.

I flagged 2 more examples of the question being asked of the new Labour gov. Also asked them to preserve (as they seem keen to do)

I also noted a few further questions on this topic to parliament, sadly they seem quite vague in terms of timescales with this labour q answering 'in due course' https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-07-18/717 which could mean anything as experience tells us. Kim Leadbetter (L) asking, answered by Alex Norris (L)

and this one from Julia Buckberry (L) To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether she plans to reintroduce a statutory Private Parking Code of Practice, tabled 30th Aug, answer due tomorrow (but I realistically doubt we will have seen any improvement on 'proposed' timelines').

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-08-30/3493

Watch this space

Thorndorise

oh also, I had to send a 'reminder' quoting the PAP to DCB Legal, and they responded with 

Dear X

We write in response to your recent correspondence received in our office dated 19/08/2024. We now respond as follows.

The parking charge of £170.00 was issued as per the contractual terms outlined on the signage displayed on site (please find attached). A further charge of £70.00 has been added as a result of your non-payment. Our Client has spent time and material attempting to recover the debt and have now had to go to the expense of instructing debt collection agencies. DCB Legal have been instructed as all previous attempts to resolve the matter have been unsuccessful. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.

The signage outlines that parking was permitted for vehicles clearly displaying a valid permit, or otherwise a parking charge notice (PCN) would be issued. A valid permit was not on display as is demonstrated in the photographic evidence enclosed. The PCN was therefore issued correctly.

The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that PCN's falls out of the scope of VAT. There is no requirement for a VAT invoice to be issued to you.

You now have 30 days from the date of this email to pay the outstanding balance of £170.00. Failure to do so will result in a claim being issued against you without further notice and further fees and costs being incurred.

Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account:  

Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account 

Sort Code: 

Account Number: 

You must quote the correct case reference (X) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.                                                                                                                         

Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 434 0424 to make payment over the telephone. 

Kind Regards, 

X

Administration Associate 

DCB Legal Ltd  

I've read through a number of the letters back from DCB Legal and it's interesting they don't use the same template for each - at least they probably do have a template but some of the wording differs (in what I would deem to be template material).

First off, the parking charge being £170 as per the contract - NO the contract (and their attached pdf of the 'site' signs states £100 PCN) but of course there is a caveat in the tiny wording stating "non-payment of the charge will result in additional charges which will be added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis". (interesting that it states driver - can those additional charges be passed to the keeper if PoFA served properly (i.e. it is categorical that it states driver)

Another section which reads slightly differently to a few I've just seen is the other one in bold...

Failure to the pat outstanding balance will result in a claim being issued against you without further notice (blah de blah), and further fees and costs being incurred. Not may be incurred, but will be incurred....nothing about them needing to win.

Coupon-mad

I'm interested in that final link answer because I have a niggling worry that Labour might get naively persuaded by the BPA that the code sits more naturally with the DfT.

That would be a disaster. Abject disaster.  I am concerned that a question has been asked of the DFT and not the MHCLG.

That local caseworker is good though!

Nellymoser

I too noticed Julie Buckley MP put question to DfT thought she'd just made a mistake but as always @Coupon-mad is on the ball seeing what the devious BPA maybe attempting.

Agree...full marks to the caseworker.

Thorndorise

Coupon-mad said:

I'm interested in that final link answer because I have a niggling worry that Labour might get naively persuaded by the BPA that the code sits more naturally with the DfT.

That would be a disaster. Abject disaster.  I am concerned that a question has been asked of the DFT and not the MHCLG.

That local caseworker is good though!

@Nellymoser

Seems like as you say, she may have made a mistake, looks like these are actually being redirected to the 'right' department (or is something happening in the background)?



Looks like there are a couple due for answers tomorrow now, both directed towards MHCLG