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

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

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.

...

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.

Fee or no fee, they can't skip the PAP. It's not optional.

Genuine questions:

As you remember the paper aeroplane lawyer on Watchdog (that was back in 2010) you've clearly been around in this industry for well over a decade. Aren't you even a tad uncomfortable or embarrassed by the aggressive monster that this industry has morphed into and the fact that it's not about parking management and all about a PCN sausage machine egged on by DRAs calling the shots?

Do you agree that things were far better before DCB Legal were invented in 2017?

Kaizen2024

By straight to court, I mean straight to LBC; with no offer of payment plans. More like 20 years. I can see you trying to bait me, not falling for that again ☺️

Car1980

I've found the answer, courtesy of the lovely old BPA, desperately scrambling to keep hold of their £70 cash cow: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/135740/default/

With no debt resolution process, cases currently referred for resolution may be passed

immediately to litigation instead. The number of cases referred for debt resolution to

the 3 main Debt Recovery Agencies who serve the private parking sector in 2022 was

over 3 million. In 2022 119.2k cases were taken to court. Applying current CCJ rates for

cases taken to court of 75%, we could see in excess of 2.2 million CCJs issued if the

policy decision to remove DR fees is implemented. We believe this would put significant

pressure on the County Court to deal with matters that should be predominantly

resolved through a well-regulated resolution process.

In 2020, 2% of the parking charges referred for debt resolution resulted in court action.

In 2021 and 2022 this figure rose to 5%.

This probably tallies with the suspected 1,000 - 1,500 a week through DCB Legal.

3.3 million debt collection transferrals would mean £210 MILLION in £70 additions.

A industry claiming it genuinely loses two hundred million and desperately scrambles to recover as much of this "loss" as possible is beyond incredible.

Brie

So without having to read through the entire thread - is there a simple thing that we should be doing?  Link to the relevant website with a standard response to voice our disgust at the whole process?

daveyjp

Brie said:

So without having to read through the entire thread - is there a simple thing that we should be doing?  Link to the relevant website with a standard response 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'.

The most open question is q13 about why cases end up in court.  That's an opportunity to spell out the failures of the system. 

It hasn't really been set up for general public to respond to and looks to be designed to get answers which will enable government to put through the already half baked solutions.

Coupon-mad

We have weeks to think about it. I'll have more time in August than now.

What we must not do is provide a template.

BTW those figures from the BPA are very useful indeed (thanks for the reminder) because they are completely flawed in more than one way.

We can attack their arguments as untrue scaremongering about the effect on the courts (again). Smells exactly like the whiff of 2011/12 when the BPA misled the DFT.

Le_Kirk

I put NO to both questions, saved my consultation intending to return.  In the meantime I have done some research and found a document from JustBeagle that seemed to show what we wanted and a link to Ministry of Justice stats but when I looked closer both were from 2017.  Not sure  that's what the consultation wanted!  Does the consultation aim to find out if the respondents know about the figures OR are they actually after the figures; if it is the latter, surely they can look then up as we can, indeed far easier than we can!

Coupon-mad

Yes, I thought that too. The MHCLG can look up the MoJ stats!

Nellymoser

I too have saved mine, keep returning as not quite finished and keep adding more.

In many of my answers I've pointed out the MHCLG already holds this information and evidence as it has been provided in the previous consultations and/or I find I'm informing MHCLG where to find the evidence. 

This is part of my answer to question No 13:

Courts are motorists only option for a truly independent and fair adjudication. 

The MoJ will have the evidence. They hold the data on the number of parking claims filed and the high number of discontinuance of parking cases in England/Wales by the parking operator's solicitors.

The data Scottish Courts hold will show that parking operators don't pursue parking cases through the Scottish courts the way they do in E/W. 

I'm quite happy to provide extra evidence for some questions eg. the appeals service but not for Debt fees which has been evidenced to death and I said as much in my answer. And oh it was difficult to keep it a polite reply to MHCLG statement on debt fees "Whilst it is difficult to draw direct comparisons with other industries,"

Coupon-mad

Don't forget one of the main reasons that parking cases currently feed to court is that they are often (e.g. the current G24 batch) 4, 5, even 6 year old PCNs that the victim knows nothing about and then has no ADR and no way to dispute it late.

Even if the D has moved house and all parties know that the PCN was never seen in the first place, PPCs are outright refusing to reissue PCNs (as was intended by the 2022 Code) because the Joint Code fiddled with that clause and uses words that blame consumers, letting PPCs get away with not reissuing PCNs.

So the Joint Code has DIRECTLY caused that.

PPCs are also refusing transfer of liability to the driver, which the POFA allows 'at any time' before court action. That's not being honoured and they are outright lying about a 28 day deadline that does not exist in the applicable law.

Hence TENS OF THOUSANDS of legacy cases that should have a fresh PCN issued (or which should be cancelled under the supposed charter) are going to court instead.

This is because the DRA fee means the third parties are not prioritising the best interests of the consumer.

Because the consumer is expected to pay for the DRA 'service' (which of course only serves PPCs) a cancelled PCN or reissued PCN earns no money, so the DRAs just put their fingers in their ears at DRA stage.

And the IAS is IMHO "as bent as a nine bob note". Refusing 95% of adjudicated appeals clearly helps feed more cases to court. The IPC bleating 'these are decisions by solicitors and barristers' doesn't excuse a non-impartial service that is clearly (by all accounts) run heavily in favour of PPCs. You only have to read the consumer-blame crap in the decisions and the Annual Reports to see right through it!

The IAS must be stopped completely.

The above are a few main reasons why cases are going to court in bulk, because there is ZERO SAFEGUARD to stop them.

And to tackle that, the industry - who benefit from the service - must cover ALL costs of any PAP letters. As ParkingEye did in the Beavis case, with an £85 PCN that still made enough profit to pay the landowner £1000 per week!

Making the industry cover the service (if they choose to use a third party) will have the added benefit of disincentivising the 'race' to farm cases out to third parties (because if they do, the PPCs will retain a lower % of each PCN).

Firms can and should issue reminders direct to the consumer. This is within the spirit of the PAP. ParkingEye are doing a soft trace and then offering payment plans with no added fee:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6619238/parking-eye

That's best practice.

Reminders from PPCs and honouring the charter at late stages (properly reissuing and cancelling PCNs) will keep cases away from court. And not doing so must be put into the Sanctions - I'm not sure it is?