Parking Code of Practice Consultation - 8 weeks from 11th July 2025

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

Someone has messed up on an excel sheet formula there, DRA’s do not have a 63% profit margin 

I'd bet DCB Legal might well do.

Castle

DCB Legal's results for the year ended 28th February 2025; (2024 comparatives):-
Turnover        £12.490 million (  £8.882 million)
Net Profit       £  7.323 million  ( £4.586 million)
Profit(%)         58.6%                (51.6%)
Dividend        £1.802 million     (£1.500 million)

Coupon-mad

And they were a start-up in 2017. Shocking.

Le_Kirk

Kaizen2024 said:

Someone has messed up on an excel sheet formula there, DRA’s do not have a 63% profit margin 

What do they have then?  With proof please.

Kaizen2024

I have no idea, but I’m told it’s not that much. 

The above DCB records will be inflated by their [non-parking related] bailiff (and TV) work which is highly profitable.

Car1980

That would be DCBL, not DCB Legal.

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

I have no idea, but I’m told it’s not that much. 

The above DCB records will be inflated by their [non-parking related] bailiff (and TV) work which is highly profitable.

No. Different company.

We're talking about DCB Legal dominating the market.

It's no surprise that the DRAs and the market-dominating legals (not Elms Legal, they are small fry, I'm sure you'll agree) are trousering a fortune right now.

Much of this unjust enrichment of aggressive limpet third parties is due to the abuse of deliberately late multi-ticketing by post, under the joke excuse of 'MNPR'...

= a slack-jawed yokel with a phone, deliberately not enabled to issue windscreen PCNs.

Why issue one single timely windscreen notice to a driver being caught out by an unsolicited/pointless and covert 'permit scheme' when moving into their new flat, when you can instead abuse DVLA data and issue twenty NTKs by post to the victim's old address the following month (not seen in time) and sue for £3400 plus fees?

Of which the likes of DCB Legal appear to keep the lion's share... I suspect PPCs are only getting a small % of batches of unpaid PCNs...

...and then DCB Ltd swiftly trace the new address, obtain a High Court Writ, add an extortionate and unexplained £200 on top (despite the legal maximum fee being £75) and send the boys round?

The bigger DRAs are making a shedload more money than PPCs do. Didn't you realise?

Coupon-mad

I posted this on another thread, can we start discussing thoughts?

The proposal to cap PCs at £100 is OK with me (others may disagree but I can see why the MHCLG did this, to avoid any delay by having to change signs) but ONLY if debt recovery fees are completely banned.

The max £100 PC level proposed is the same as exists already and it's more than high enough to cover a tidy profit for operators plus the minor cost of reminders and pre-action protocol engagement. The industry can decide how the split of proceeds works.

Making the public pay more in disputed cases is plain madness and doesn't match the FCA CONC rules or the POFA schedule 4 maximum sum.

To add anything at DRA stage is to make the PCN £120 or £130, which is wholly unjustified. There is no service provided to consumers by DRAs, except 'payment plans' which the FCA has already got rules about - and it says third parties CANNOT CHARGE EXTRA for comparable payment plans like 'pay in three'.

Ralph-y

should we not be asking every visitor to the forum to do the consultation?

Kaizen2024

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.