Parking Code of Practice Consultation 2025 - now let's see what happens

Castle

Following on from LoneStarState's research here are the average appeal results over the 5 year period to 2022. The "others" figure is generally non-contests by the Parking Company/Local authority.

(Please note that the BPA and IPC figures are for the 5 years to 30th September 2022 whilst the London Tribunals and Outside London figures are for the 5 year period to 31st March 2022 because they have a different year end).

                               BPA:-                        16% won/55% lost/29% others
                               IPC:-                           5% won/70% lost/25% others
                               London Tribunals:-   22% won/49% lost/29% others
                               Outside London:-     36% won/36% lost/28% others

Thorndorise

Umkomaas said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's really helpful thankyou @LoneStarState

We also have proof kicking about that the DRAs 'work' on a 'no win no fee basis* which immediately means there is nothing in it for them to honour Appeals Charter evidence or 'allow' Transfers of Liability. So they just put barriers in the way and their fingers in their ears & carry on to court.

* including three DRAs who advertised a no-win-no-fee service prior to the IPC Conference a few years ago then swiftly altered their adverts just before a DLUHC Public Consultation.

Anyone got that proof?

Anyone got the old IPC Newsletter with Gladstones pretty much blatantly advertising that they 'front' court fees in exchange for share of proceeds?

Some randoms from my photo library:

That felt a bit like going through a box of old holiday snaps!  

Thanks @Umkomaas - these are great and frankly shocking, that second one... " I created the model of "admin fees" for debt recovery because parking value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is all about money after all."

Brilliant, I thought it was a service provision no? lol

Nellymoser

I said in my response that I and many others had previously provided evidence in past consultations that 'debt fees were created to make money....' but since the MHCLG has chosen to overlook this evidence it I will quote it once again.

Protest

Coupon-mad said:

grassmarket said:

It’s easy! A simple email response to the Consultation is all you need to make your views known. Absolutely no need to do the full-blown version.

I think you've missed that the MHCLG want responses using the survey portal. I do say that in my OP. Please don't tell people to email half baked responses because that's not what we want, nor do the MHCLG want to get swamped with emails.

I'm writing the question by question guidance for good reason.

Nobody should be rushing a reply, however well intentioned. 

I really do not care what MHCLG want. I wanted a well-structured consultation that reflected several years of effort by civil servants to present a clear case for improvement delivery. I have got a bureaucratic shambles to try and deal with, and that may well colour my response. Rubbish in, rubbish out but in reverse.

The industry has sucked us all into playing entangled and endless legal wordgames. The courts should not be available to operate as a redress for abysmal management practices employed by the industry, especially in pursuit of small invoices that have been inflated beyond recognition by trumped-up penalties.

We need to see this nonsense to its end and get a best-possible result out of it, but does this government and the past performance of MHLCG give us any reason for optimism? We need clarity; the industry thrives on the confusion that it creates, and on the isolation and inexperience of the motorist.

A tight cap on DVLA access might be a much faster route to a solution. 

Coupon-mad

Protest said:

A tight cap on DVLA access might be a much faster route to a solution. 

That's a great, succinct answer for Q33.

And this comment from @Johnersh is on the money for Q33 too:

Johnersh said:

Personally, I think a really simple solution would be to permit longer particulars on the e-form and then routinely crucify parties where claims have been inadequately pleaded or, in the alternative, to make the online PoC a facility for litigants in person only 

And the online 'request judgment' button should be for LiPs and non-represented SMEs and sole traders only.

And ban legal firms from 'fronting' claim fees for parking firms. They exert far too much control in exchange for a share of enhanced proceeds and this cuts to lack of professional (distanced) integrity and a conflict of interests, as a real solicitor's first duty is to the court.

Damages based agreements/contingency fee agreements absolutely have their place for things that work for the greater good but NOT in a sector already known to be in market failure and causing immense consumer harm.

And 'running' car parks or roadways without charging the landowner is clearly a close to 'protect racket' business model. Free or 'peppercorn' landowner agreements should be banned.

No other service works 'free' in exchange for the right for a leechlike company A to intimidate and sue the customers, residents, patrons and even vulnerable patients and disabled visitors of host company B.

And there's this list of ideas from @antigrifter

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625104/public-consultation-question-33-suggested-response

Car1980

1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

I am unclear how a Keeper who was not the Driver is liable for anything other than the original £100 parking charge.

There is nothing in the POF Act that makes the Keeper liable for recovery fees, court fees, solicitors fees or interest.

ParkingMad

Protest said:

A tight cap on DVLA access might be a much faster route to a solution. 

There are no sanctions for PPCs when they fail the DVLA audit. These are the latest results.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/giaa_audit_results_of_private_pa_4#comment-122860

Castle

I make that 43 "Greens", 11 "Ambers" and 36 "Reds"; so, a 40% failure rate.

Humdinger1

It would be interesting to know the criteria for each band, no? In the real world, they might all be red...

Coupon-mad

Re the question about APPEALS:

If anyone is still perfecting your responses, don't forget this as part of your answer as to what's wrong with the current appeals set up:

Since the Joint Code tried to restrict appeals to block registered keepers from their legal right to appeal against a parking charge, several operators have (in 2024/25) changed their appeals pages to block keeper appeals and make it seem that appealing is conditional on naming the driver.

This is a civil offence by the trader, a 'misleading omission and/or action' under the DMCC Act 2024 ..  but the Joint Code has enabled this rogue conduct.

THE MHCLG MUST REVERSE IT.

A keeper is perfectly entitled to appeal and the law, the BPA and the DVLA agree.

Here's the official stated position on this (thanks to Siross for this useful DVLA email).

It is not allowed to appeal to make appeal conditional upon saying who was driving:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64401866#Comment_64401866

That was 11 years ago by David Dunford at the DVLA.

Please show that to the MHCLG too, when answering the question about appeals. If you want to name and shame, we've seen this misleading conduct scammery from:

- SolutionLabs (hybrid debt collector type member) who told a keeper they were 'deleting' their appeal:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6623611/what-next

- SABA, who have reportedly set up a tick box making it mandatory to name the driver;
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6626600/saba-parking-charge-at-bassetlaw-hospital

- Civil Enforcement Ltd who reportedly have made exactly the same change to their appeals page in recent months, DESPITE being ordered by Steve Clark (when he ran the BPA AOS) to remove that exact same tick box about 5 years ago. I know, because I raised that complaint!

( I haven't got a CEL thread to hand to prove this but I recall it has been posted as happening again due to the Joint Code).