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

Nellymoser

MP Abtisam Mohamed is encouraging as many people to respond outlining their concerns.

https://x.com/Abtisam_Mohamed/status/1943692112018464792

"My own view is that the proposed changes do little to protect people from low-income backgrounds. The cap should be much lower than £100 and offering a 40% discount pressures motorists into paying, rather than exploring their options to appeal."

"Finally, the burden of debt recovery fees should not be placed on motorists, whatever the cost, and should be scrapped altogether."

"I urge my constituents to engage with the consultation."

Kaizen2024

Compare that to the 'up to 67%' who used to pay DR Plus when they took 15% commission plus VAT).

What is the source of this data please? For parking debt, not commercial debt.

daveyjp

LoneStarState said:

Kaizen2024 said:

daveyjp said:

Local Authorities work under a legal framework designed for public benefit with proper scrutiny and appeals process.

Just saying.

As will the private sector in due course.

Additionally with respect to LA penalties, whilst there is an escalation in amounts owed, a very low cost stat declaration can reset the PCN back to the original penalty amount in valid cases.  Also PCNs at the bailiff stage do not come attached with a CCJ that wrecks your credit rating for 6 years.

Indeed,  a friend has just had final demand papers for a clean air zone penalty.  He appealed (at no cost) as he had received no paperwork and wasn't aware of CAZ.  He normally drives a car which is exempt, but on this occasion was in his wife's 20 year old pick up which isn't.

The PCN has been reissued and he will pay the original discounted fee.

Car1980

Any info for these questions?

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

Compare that to the 'up to 67%' who used to pay DR Plus when they took 15% commission plus VAT).

What is the source of this data please? For parking debt, not commercial debt.

Show me some of your sources and evidence and I'll consider showing you a peep at mine.

Why do you think parking 'debt' is not the same as any other alleged commercial debt? Could it be because - unlike the former - the latter is more likely to be based on a fair supply contract and is valid 'monies owed'?

Why do YOU think only 14% of duped victims pay a parking DRA?

Coupon-mad

Car1980 said:

Any info for these questions?

These are vital to answer but we need data and evidence. Hmmm. Need to think/talk about these questions.

Everything needs evidence, except to note that first question does just go on to ask for 'information' on why parking cases end up in the courts.

Kaizen2024

Coupon-mad said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Compare that to the 'up to 67%' who used to pay DR Plus when they took 15% commission plus VAT).

What is the source of this data please? For parking debt, not commercial debt.

Show me some of your sources and evidence and I'll consider showing you a peep at mine.

Why do you think parking 'debt' is not the same as any other alleged commercial debt? Could it be because - unlike the former - the latter is more likely to be based on a fair supply contract and is valid 'monies owed'?

Why do YOU think only 14% of duped victims pay a parking DRA?

I have no sources of data other than my own and what is available on the internet.

Parking Debt is different for several reasons, such as the misconception that payment is optional, which is largely fuelled by forums such as this and the misinformed ‘lawyers’ you see on the likes of ‘rip-off Britain’ making airplanes with letters.

Commercial debt is also less contentious / complex, with there being a lot less scope for dispute. It also involves a lot higher sums of money, so it’s a huge risk to dispute where the debt is higher than £10k (costs awarded etc).

Then there is the risk of no one doing business with you if you don’t pay your bills, something that is not a consideration for a consumer; aside from being black listed by utility companies etc without the need to go to courts.

Forums such as this also have a part to play in DR collection rates being low (which no doubt you celebrate), advising everyone to ignore them; but it does force operators to issue claims instead.

Remove the DR fee (as some call it) and operators will skip this process and go straight to court, where the costs will be contributed to with fixed solicitors fees etc.

Car1980

Money owed for supply of a service or product is always going to be seen as more valid than money owed for breaching a contract ie. a fine to all intents and purposes.

And payment IS optional. I've never paid one.

Council penalties are not optional. But they come with a genuine appeals process and legislation.

kryten3000

Payment of any debt is always optional, even when a judgment is entered against a defendant in court.

Dealing with the consequences of not paying is an exercise for the debtor

Since parking charge debts are merely alleged unless a judge says otherwise then avoiding payment prior to court has no consequences other than the useless letter chain.

ChirpyChicken

kryten3000 said:

Payment of any debt is always optional, even when a judgment is entered against a defendant in court.

Dealing with the consequences of not paying is an exercise for the debtor

Since parking charge debts are merely alleged unless a judge says otherwise then avoiding payment prior to court has no consequences other than the useless letter chain.

Even when a debt is passed to a HCEO there is no need for someone to panic and pay. If there is no scope to set aside you can easily ride them out and they will go away if handled correctly.