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

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!

A parking industry poster below said:


*************************************
No offer of payment plans?

Why on earth not? They aren't only the remit of third party profiteering DRA leeches.

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.

If and when the double recovery 'fee' is banned, more PPCs will be happy to send automated reminders (see the ParkingEye letter chain in Beavis) and to offer payment plans like this, in order to secure the full payment.

Why would they want to race to court any more, if they were no longer offered the chance to make more money like DRAs offer now?

Typically, a DRA like Trace Debt offers a £35/£35 split of the fake added £70, which is why PPCs churn data straight over in bulk and wash their hands of any attempt at consumer engagement or fairness.

This never used to happen and up to 67% of people used to pay DR Plus according to the DR Plus document that I gave to the DLUHC several times.

DR Plus also said in BPA's 'Parking News' 'No Small Change' article in 2022 that they were ready to reintroduce that model, so with most PPCs who might not be up for in-house reminders, there would be no ducking of DRA stage and no resulting court claim increase. 

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?

Castle

Nellymoser said:

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. 

According the Impact Assessment report signed off in July 2023 this work is already underway; (page 62 for reference).

"7.40. Work is ongoing with the Ministry of Justice and the industry to obtain data on the number of parking claims that are currently going through the court system and outcomes of these claims, and through the call for evidence the Government is aiming to gather evidence on the behavioural implications of introducing the Code and various options for parking charges and debt recovery fees". 

Nellymoser

I have made reference to the Impact Assessment in some of my answers but I'm not prepared to dig out specific paragraphs to evidence my opinion where I feel MHCLG should already have knowledge of this.

I'm prepared to provide new evidence such as reported FOI figures and revenue a PPC generated from the reduced £20 pcn cost and specific evidence on 2nd stage appeals service from their annual reports.

I've just started to read the Govt Options Assessment it said the dept received around 1,000 responses to the 2023 Call for Evidence. Pity DLUHC didn't publish the response to it. Hopefully MHCLG will after closure of this one.

Jape_demino

As many here have already pointed out, I'm puzzled by some of the questions that ask for evidence or data sources. For the average motorist like me, this kind of information surely isn't expected .

However, within the scope of the consultation, the following is stated::

"This is a public consultation and is open to everyone to respond to. Section 2 of the Act requires the Secretary of State to consult persons who represent the interests of those who provide, operate or manage private car parking facilities and those who use or may use them, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.  Views are especially invited from carpark users, those who represent the interests of motorists, the parking industry, landowners, and businesses involved in debt recovery to help inform decision making. However, views are welcome from anyone else who has an interest in private parking.

This raises the question: could the evidence-based questions intended for parking operators, landowners, and debt recovery businesses, as opposed to everyday motorists?

If so, then perhaps it’s fine to respond honestly, even with “no” to those questions, while still making your perspective as a motorist heard,