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

Bazarius

Kaizen2024 said:

Local Authorities increase their rates by 50% at charge certificate stage for a very good reason and is supported by Government; and their costs are a lot less than the private sector.. Just saying.

It’s well-established that PCNs issued by local authorities are considerably lower than the £100 routinely imposed by private parking firms—and those public sector charges are calibrated to match the seriousness of the infringement.

In my area, the Council starts at £50 for lesser contraventions, with a maximum of £70 for the most serious. If a charge certificate is issued, 50% is added—resulting in £75 and £105 respectively.

So where exactly is this £70 coming from? It doesn’t align with statutory authority nor Council practice. It seems entirely baseless, almost as if it were plucked from thin air. #Outrageous Scam (Hansard) 

And let’s not forget: Paragraphs 4(5) and 4(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 make it clear that the maximum sum recoverable from the keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper no more, no less. The Act expressly prohibits additional charges being levied against the keeper beyond what was originally stood at the time the PCN was given. 

Read the attached Explanatory Notes and pass this information to your wonderful members at your next seminar . 

Kaizen2024

And let’s not forget: Paragraphs 4(5) and 4(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 make it clear that the maximum sum recoverable from the keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper no more, no less. The Act expressly prohibits additional charges being levied against the keeper beyond what was originally stood at the time the PCN was given. 

This is correct; however, a savvy operator will quote the £70 in their NTK / NTD and it is not mandatory to use POFA anyway.

Bazarius

Kaizen2024 said:

And let’s not forget: Paragraphs 4(5) and 4(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 make it clear that the maximum sum recoverable from the keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper no more, no less. The Act expressly prohibits additional charges being levied against the keeper beyond what was originally stood at the time the PCN was given. 

This is correct; however, a savvy operator will quote the £70 in their NTK / NTD and it is not mandatory to use POFA anyway.

Your argument rests on a foundation of flawed reasoning and deliberate misrepresentation. 

But by all means, keep digging - the contradictions become more glaring with every step. At this rate, the IPC risks being reduced to little more than a convenient gateway to the DVLA database. Competing on membership prices with the BPA .  

Kaizen2024

The MOJ do not agree with you, as confirmed in a webinar a few years ago hosted by the DCLG.

Bazarius

Kaizen2024 said:

The MOJ do not agree with you, as confirmed in a webinar a few years ago hosted by the DCLG.

If you’re so confident in that Pofa  interpretation, then be bold - take it all the way to the Supreme Court and let the law speak for itself. 

The fact remains: inflated recovery charges are routinely struck out in county courts. It’s telling that Britannia Parking quietly withdrew from Crosby and leaned on Semark-Julien in the joint Appeal instead. Why? Because dragging Crosby through the courts risked exposing the parking industry’s exploitative practices in broad daylight. The strategy is transparent, and it’s not fooling anyone.

Nellymoser

daveyjp said:

Brie said:

...to voice our disgust at the whole process?

That's the problem.
The pointed and very specific nature of the questions means there is very little scope to 'voice our disgust at the whole process'.

I see there are two options to 'voice our disgust at the whole process'.

Question 33: Do you have any other comments in relation to the proposals and matters set out in this consultation or in the Options Assessment published alongside the consultation?

and near the end of the consultation is the other option:

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via our complaints procedure.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance/consultation-principles-2018

I'm certainly planning on using both.

Protest

The high cap (£100) is justified as containing an incentive - a penalty charge independent of costs incurred by the operator. This is intended to act on errant motorists to encourage better behaviour. Unfortunately it works even more potently on some operators, incentivising breach-of-contract entrappment and hence much of the stupidity that we see as contested PCN invoices.

This moral hazard hidden within the cap needs exposure and remedial action - ie a cap that removes any idea of penalty or incentive. It is the operators' responsibility to supervise their facilities, they cannot run ropey systems and charge motorists (even the "bad" ones) for revenue leakage. 

Nellymoser

Don't know how others feel but I expected to see the Govt completely ban the use of these error producing, not fit for purpose parking payment machines and systems.

Looks like this Govt wants to retain the opportunity for the parking operators to be able to issue pcns for machine, technology or human errors while giving only those motorists who can produce 'not my fault' evidence see their pcn cancelled at appeal.

IMO the Govt have selected the wrong solution to address this problem. Their choices will do nothing to simplify the parking experience for motorists. I'm left asking is this Ministerial Dept incompetent or negligent.

patient_dream

"is this Ministerial Dept incompetent or negligent."

YES TO BOTH

Coupon-mad

Posted this on another thread at the weekend after @LoneStarState reminded us all about the bombshell clout of the CMA and the DMCC Act but it's more relevant here:

Coupon-mad said:

Wonder how the DMCC Act affects the current/recent conduct of:

- operators
- DRAs
- the shonky Appeals Services
- the APAs and their shonky 'Joint Code'.

There's a heck of a lot of REALLY interesting silver bullets in the DMCC Act which is clear, even if you skim-read the Technical Note first you get a flavour of it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unfair-commercial-practices-cma207

I don't even think the MHCLG's current proposals and presumptions comply...

We need to trawl though this Act for the Public Consultation and/or we can (LOTS OF US) insist the Government consults the CMA - and the FCA and the ICO - thoroughly.

And everyone (newbies included of course) if you can - and even if you have no spare time, knowledge or inclination to do the Consultation yourself - please please tweet the Public Consultation to the CMA, FCA and ICO and/or tag them in a 'shout out' encouraging responses on whatever Social Media we all use.

We could also tag organisations like the Private Hire / Taxi trade publications, courier organisations, Citizens Advice, StepChange, Money Advice Trust, et al and suggest they join the consumer voice to ban 'debt recovery fees' in this sector completely.

Like with appeals, the parking industry should wholly fund any third party involvement, out of the millions they are rinsing in PCNs.

That way (if the DRAs are paid by the industry a going rate regardless of consumer outcome) DRAs won't be in incentivised to ignore matters that arise that make them no money (transfers of liability, permits, blue badges, realisation of keying errors and cases needing reissued PCNs).

All of those outcomes fairly favour consumers but DRAs make no money if they recognise those cases. They currently completely ignore the Appeals Charter section of the Joint Code, saying 'it's too late, pay up and pay more or we'll sue.'

This is why consumers should NOT be the side asked to fund pre-action stage. It is unbalanced: if a DRA does the right thing by a consumer they MAKE NO MONEY.

Thus we can evidence and identify a lack of adequate management of the conflict of interest between giving solutions in the customer’s best interests and recommending an option that makes the firms more money.

If that sounds familiar, it was the exact rationale the FCA used when banning debt packagers from receiving referral fees:

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/financial-watchdog-proposes-ban-debt-packager-referral-fees-protect-consumers#

The FCA needs a social media shout...