Parking Code of Practice Consultation - now EXTENDED - closes Friday 26th September

Nellymoser

Coupon-mad said:

Nellymoser said:

Environmental Question 36

In my answer I also mentioned how Operators are restricting/stopping EV drivers recharging with their car park time restrictions and when on site businesses are closed.

Two in three EV drivers have waited more than 10 minutes to use charger – survey
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-three-ev-drivers-waited-230100329.html

And banning Debt fees would dramatically reduce DRA paper use!
 

Good points!

Operators also restrict times you can use the recycling facilities in private car parks. 
Expecting people to pay the overnight parking tariff or receive a hefty pcn when dropping off recycling materials is more likely to put people off than encourage them to recycle using the facilities in private car parks.
Evidence:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/man-locked-row-parking-company-040000801.html

Coupon-mad

Nellymoser said:

Coupon-mad said:

Nellymoser said:

Environmental Question 36

In my answer I also mentioned how Operators are restricting/stopping EV drivers recharging with their car park time restrictions and when on site businesses are closed.

Two in three EV drivers have waited more than 10 minutes to use charger – survey
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-three-ev-drivers-waited-230100329.html

And banning Debt fees would dramatically reduce DRA paper use!
 

Good points!

Operators also restrict times you can use the recycling facilities in private car parks. 
Expecting people to pay the overnight parking tariff or receive a hefty pcn when dropping off recycling materials is more likely to put people off than encourage them to recycle using the facilities in private car parks.
Evidence:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/man-locked-row-parking-company-040000801.html

Good point for the environmental question.

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas said:

Just a quickie from me. Is there any shortcut to get to your last comments in the response in order to continue a partially completed and saved document, without having to scroll down each page from the start, click 'Continue', then same again next page. As I'm approaching Q33, it's taking an age to get there, every time!

Don't think so...?

Here is an additional concern to add to question 33 about when operators jump ship from one APA to another:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81613849/#Comment_81613849

As well as the concern about whether sanction points follow the operator if they switch horses, there are more issues about transparency:.

- There has ALWAYS been an issue that the APAs fail to state the date that an AOS member joined and/or left the AOS. This must be stated to the day.

- There has always been an issue (a civil offence 'misleading omission' by the BPA and IPC) that they FAIL TO MARK THE AOS LIST if an operator has left or has been suspended by them or the DVLA.

Consumers are entitled to (NEED to know) the dates of suspension by an APA or the DVLA because that means an operator cannot get their DVLA data during that period.

It cannot be down to someone having to guess or send an FOI to the DVLA every month to ask which PPCs are banned or suspended!

Coupon-mad

Another point for question 33:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81614452/#Comment_81614452

There must be a mandated route to make it easy for lease firms to transfer liability, to encourage them to do that instead of paying & denying hirer/lessees their right to appeal.

Other points for Q33:

- the '21 days from service' discount is required instead of the unfair 14 days.

- Requiring a debtor to pay the VAT element of a DRA fee or commission is unlawful under HMRC rules. Adding £70 enriches both the DRA and the PPC because they share that, and the duped victim pays over the odds (including the trader's VAT which they can reclaim). HMRC clarified that this is not allowed for enforcement fees (bailiffs) and the same rule applies to DRA fees in every sector.

- Adding costs is banned in the Scottish Simple Procedure for claims under £300

As I believe are 'contingency fee arrangements' where solicitors 'front' claim fees because this is possibly champertous conduct which is still illegal in Scotland I think.

@Old_Slobberchops am I right? We know that some/all of the bulk legals in E&W front the claim filing fees which creates a conflict of interests. Offends against public policy and maybe cannot pass in Scotland. Another reason to ban consumers having to fund this model 

Coupon-mad

Re major keying errors caused by faulty machines:

there is FOI evidence that these are likely to be occurring in as much as a THIRD of all tariffs paid at Kent Country Parks:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81614474/#Comment_81614474

Could someone please email Ellie for a proper copy of her FOI replies from the Parks please, and encourage her to email her findings to the MHCLG before the Public Consultation closes?

Secondly, re the question about the Appeals Charter:

It's all well and good but how are victims of faulty machines meant to know that a keying error (machine fault) even occurred? Let alone raise it at appeal and assume the evidential burden of 'showing' (proving?) what went wrong!

How would they know, when the PCN is accusing them of not paying?

The onus should be on operators to prove that they have carries out a 'fuzzy payments list' check for similar or partial VRMs that could match the payment, AND to show that evidence - a partially redacted list of payments made - with rejection letters, so people know what checks the operator has or hasn't made.

And it should be a sanctionable breach for an operator NOT to substantiate their reasons for rejection of appeals, with evidence and checks made for things like this and double dips, etc.

After all, only 1%-2% of people try second stage appeal so in the interests of transparency, a rejection letter MUST explain the allegation fully and attach evidence of thorough checks.

Coupon-mad

A list of typical, regular scammery - mostly from DRAs - if anyone wants to use any if these examples to prove your point you're making:


PPC rogue conduct (early stage):

Euro Car Parks ('ECP')
The faulty machine scam continues. At Kent Country Parks alone, ECP made an extra £20,000:above paid tariffs. This FOI suggests a THIRD of drivers who paid a tariff had a PCN due to system failure:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81614474/#Comment_81614474

One Parking Solution:
Issued a windscreen PCN to a community nurse on call in a NHS Trust car with the logo on both sides & NHS badge in the window. DESPITE their contract with BHCC banning OPS from this:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6626645/ops-pcn

Gemini
non-POFA but misleads the recipient:
'we will assume you were the driver' (rogue practice enabled by Joint Code, IMHO a misleading action by both APAs):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80549315/#Comment_80549315

Norwich Traffic Control
POFA (misleading threat re 'prosecution'): 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80754064/#Comment_80754064

Bank Park operating car parks without Planning Permission:
https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/consumer/sheffield-parking-bank-park-ordered-to-close-second-site-or-risk-unlimited-fine-5292637

MET Parking
Issuing a NTK misleading the keeper that the POFA 2012 applies at an Airport. This conduct is an offence:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81625128/#Comment_81625128




Unfair conduct when people appeal:

Parkmaven routinely ignore Transfers of Liability to hirers or drivers & bombard keepers with demands, knowing Lease Firms will pay (this conduct denies named hirers & drivers any right to appeal):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81614400/#Comment_81614400

ANPR 365
Minor keying error: Admitted they'd found a payment made for 'a similar VRM' but just rejected the appeal (CoP breach):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81613849/#Comment_81613849

Minster Baywatch:
No rejection letter or POPLA Code after appeal and the NTK had arrived 3 weeks after it was 'dated' so no discount offered:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81625152/#Comment_81625152

BaySentry: This mitigating circs case is like any keying error: appeal refused despite the appellant having paid in full (pre-booked, payment now matched but appeal refused & they kept the tariff that she paid for the wrong day): 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81613895/#Comment_81613895

PCM issued PCN to resident assisting disabled passenger (not parked). IAS enabled this rogue PCN with template IAS rejection, despite PCM admitting "whilst the photo evidence captures 2 different signs, they are essentially both alluding to the same thing" (they didn't):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81612666/#Comment_81612666

ECP unfair PCN wrongly enabled by POPLA: 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81612075/#Comment_81612075

ParkingEye, enabled by POPLA
5 minute rule case. Full 16hrs parking paid for. PEye ignored that & confused POPLA:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625869/sanity-check-of-pcn-popla-decision

Smart Parking, enabled by the IAS:
NTK sent too late for keeper liability and the appellant wasn't driving. This appeal (correctly) always wins at POPLA but loses at IAS:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81622400/#Comment_81622400

(Not so) Civil Enforcement Ltd
Letting their agent refuse transfer of liability whilst CEL's complaints policy says they: "only accept complaints within 56 days of the alleged breach
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81622668/#Comment_81622668

UKPS
Issued PCN by post to vulnerable disabled patient at NHS site. Despite admitting that 'the signage informing patients to register their vehicle details with reception when using a disabled parking bay was temporarily removed due to redecoration works' they took the scared victim's money & refused to listen to a valid complaint about their conduct: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81612662/#Comment_81612662




DRA rogue conduct when issuing NTKs (not escalation stage):

PCS (DR Plus t/a) acting for AM Parking
NTK - first letter after windscreen PCN - demands £120 - blatant CoP breach:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81498278/#Comment_81498278

TNC acting for CPS (Midlands)
NTK - first letter after windscreen PCN - "you can't appeal":
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80470003/#Comment_80470003

ZZPS acting for GBP Management
ZZPS admitted they didn't bother to even issue a NTK (at all) yet they lied: 'the keeper remains liable':
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6524412/gbp-management-dcb-legal-court-claim-2025/p7


ZZPS acting for Globe Protection
NTK misleads that they have a 'right to recover DRA costs' from a keeper (in fact Sch 4 bans this - maximum is PCN sum):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81092626/#Comment_81092626

ZZPS acting for LDK Security Group
sent £threatogram ONE day after POPLA code:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80948620/#Comment_80948620

more incoming... lots more!!!!

DRA conduct of course will be listed here.

TBA

Coupon-mad

DRA and PPC rogue conduct at 'escalation' stage:

DCB Ltd refuse transfer of liability and won't listen to any disputes:
DCB; "the timeframe in which to transfer liability expired prior to our instruction. DCBL are not part of the transfer of liability process... DCBL are unable to enter any further correspondence regarding your appeal or dispute"
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81501726/#Comment_81501726

UKCPM refused to listen to disputes and issued two separate claims (one via Gladstones, one via BW Legal which is an abuse of court) re PCNs at a flat the OP leases, and where the Housing Association had cancelled the 2 Gladstones claim PCNs months before:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6592865/court-claim/p1

UKPC reject valid transfer of liability to the driver who lives abroad (which is allowed, if true) and here have pretended they can 'revert to the keeper':
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6627171/liability-reverted-back-to-me-after-i-named-driver/p1

ParkingEye add £30 late:
PEye now add £30 (was zero till 2023, then £25). Not quantified on signs and FAR too late; they ambush with this enhancement on LBCs. Defended case won: faulty machines. "District Judge Jackson at County Court, Newport mentioned if he had found in their favour he would have rejected the additional amount as the wording was at best "vague" & no justification as to how they arrived at the £25"

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81611378/#Comment_81611378


MORE TBA...!!

Coupon-mad

Appalling claims pleadings: these support the case against bulk legals 'fronting' claim filing fees (offends against public policy):

Moorside Legal: look at the particulars! Were they drunk? They caused a default CCJ by using an old address with a completely unspecified claim talking about 'parking fines'. Clobbered by Defendant's solicitor (£3500 in costs which Moorside will charge the PPC):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625934/court-report-reading-countrywide-parking-hit-for-3-500-costs

DCB Legal: Multi PCNs at more than one site 2022/23 but the claim form only pleaded one location (£840 claimed. Discontinued):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81615216/#Comment_81615216

DCB Legal: PCNs from 2017! Claim form failed to specify any breaches. £890 claimed in 2023; still limping on: interest means sum at stake is now c£1000 for 3 PCNs from EIGHT years ago:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81613638/#Comment_81613638

DCB Legal routinely misleading the courts about POFA keeper liability by using boilerplate claim particulars. These are both MET at Stansted Airport where POFA 2012 Sch4 cannot apply:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625624/dcb-legal-met-parking-claim-received

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81612132/#Comment_81612132

DCB Legal are misleading the court in EVERY 2025 Smart Parking claim, tens of thousands all lying about the POFA: (keepers sued when not driver, misled re POFA which is a contempt of court) e.g. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625722/smart-parking-dcbl/p1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6627228/letter-from-hm-courts-with-n1sdt-form

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81628318/#Comment_81628318

And this Smart case: duplicated one 2020 PCN (claimed twice). Victim panicked & paid half of £600, now having to pay to counterclaim:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81613441/#Comment_81613441

DCB Legal: Banked £60 in full settlement for a CEL PCN but now CEL have sent a LBC. No semblance of protection of the interests of consumers. CEL clearly don't know it was settled. PPCs appear to have no involvement. Looks like champertous conduct:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81612607/#Comment_81612607

DCB Legal:
Issued two claims dated the same day for the same parties, same car & location. This is an abuse of court:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81622980/#Comment_81622980

DCB Legal: claim sent to old address, got a default CCJ then DCB miraculously traced the right address:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6612224/another-out-of-the-blue-ccj-from-dcbl

LoneStarState

I appreciate it's late in the day but given all the excellent advice here just thought I'd add some additional media people can use in their submissions, particularly with respect to the IPC and its "independent" appeals service as compelling evidence for why nothing short of a truly independent external appeals service with truly impartial qualified adjudicators will suffice.  It also helps to evidence that competing appeals services has created a race to the bottom where the IPC is happy to fill the void and provide a pro operator model that funnels second stage appeals to a dismissal enabling the debt recovery wheeze and the additional £70 out of thin air to be tacked onto PCNs, all to the detriment of consumers.  I will be including this as part of a comprehensive submission to the consultation over this weekend but also for others yet to submit below.

First, the laughable ownership structure of the IAS with regards to the IPC, UNITI and Will Hurley:



Second, the embarrassing adjudication outcome stats for the IAS vs POPLA (which time and again also makes fundamental errors).  The numbers below are all taken from the respective annual activity reports for those years.  The IAS now actually has all its activity reports online but only the years below actually include the relevant stats for adjudication outcomes for the IAS. 

Important note for these numbers:
For 2018, the IAS only listed the percentage outcome and not the absolute numbers so the ones shown here were backcalculated and may differ slightly from the true value (whatever they might be).



Also something else to include is the embarrassing IPC corporate slide deck from 2016 likely made to woo operators over to the IPC from the BPA.  Of particular note is slide 7 where the IPC slide deck proudly states how the IAS has a 95% average "success" rate for operators vs POPLA's lower "success" rate in adjudicating PCN appeals. 

The slideshow is available at:
https://www.imperial.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/IPC-membership-benefits.pptx

If that link magically stops working, I've made sure it is logged on the wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250805234205/https://www.imperial.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/IPC-membership-benefits.pptx

You might note the slide deck's author is John Davies of Gladstones.

Coupon-mad

That's really helpful thankyou @LoneStarState

We also have proof kicking about that the DRAs 'work' on a 'no win no fee basis* which immediately means there is nothing in it for them to honour Appeals Charter evidence or 'allow' Transfers of Liability. So they just put barriers in the way and their fingers in their ears & carry on to court.

* including three DRAs who advertised a no-win-no-fee service prior to the IPC Conference a few years ago then swiftly altered their adverts just before a DLUHC Public Consultation.

Anyone got that proof?

Anyone got the old IPC Newsletter with Gladstones pretty much blatantly advertising that they 'front' court fees in exchange for share of proceeds?