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

Coupon-mad

Some of the supposed 'minor tweaks' to the withdrawn code are objectionable so we mustn't miss that question.

Anyone else already listed the issues?

gizzy6791

This is shocking!

It does reference the public consultation in mainstream media which should get more eyes on it and highlights the fact that something really does need to change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce83n7j7p6po

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

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?

Some randoms from my photo library:

That felt a bit like going through a box of old holiday snaps!  

Castle

Following on from LoneStarState's research here are the average appeal results over the 5 year period to 2022. The "others" figure is generally non-contests by the Parking Company/Local authority.

(Please note that the BPA and IPC figures are for the 5 years to 30th September 2022 whilst the London Tribunals and Outside London figures are for the 5 year period to 31st March 2022 because they have a different year end).

                               BPA:-                        16% won/55% lost/29% others
                               IPC:-                           5% won/70% lost/25% others
                               London Tribunals:-   22% won/49% lost/29% others
                               Outside London:-     36% won/36% lost/28% others

Thorndorise

Umkomaas said:

Coupon-mad said:

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?

Some randoms from my photo library:

That felt a bit like going through a box of old holiday snaps!  

Thanks @Umkomaas - these are great and frankly shocking, that second one... " I created the model of "admin fees" for debt recovery because parking value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is all about money after all."

Brilliant, I thought it was a service provision no? lol

Nellymoser

I said in my response that I and many others had previously provided evidence in past consultations that 'debt fees were created to make money....' but since the MHCLG has chosen to overlook this evidence it I will quote it once again.

Protest

Coupon-mad said:

grassmarket said:

It’s easy! A simple email response to the Consultation is all you need to make your views known. Absolutely no need to do the full-blown version.

I think you've missed that the MHCLG want responses using the survey portal. I do say that in my OP. Please don't tell people to email half baked responses because that's not what we want, nor do the MHCLG want to get swamped with emails.

I'm writing the question by question guidance for good reason.

Nobody should be rushing a reply, however well intentioned. 

I really do not care what MHCLG want. I wanted a well-structured consultation that reflected several years of effort by civil servants to present a clear case for improvement delivery. I have got a bureaucratic shambles to try and deal with, and that may well colour my response. Rubbish in, rubbish out but in reverse.

The industry has sucked us all into playing entangled and endless legal wordgames. The courts should not be available to operate as a redress for abysmal management practices employed by the industry, especially in pursuit of small invoices that have been inflated beyond recognition by trumped-up penalties.

We need to see this nonsense to its end and get a best-possible result out of it, but does this government and the past performance of MHLCG give us any reason for optimism? We need clarity; the industry thrives on the confusion that it creates, and on the isolation and inexperience of the motorist.

A tight cap on DVLA access might be a much faster route to a solution. 

Coupon-mad

Protest said:

A tight cap on DVLA access might be a much faster route to a solution. 

That's a great, succinct answer for Q33.

And this comment from @Johnersh is on the money for Q33 too:

Johnersh said:

Personally, I think a really simple solution would be to permit longer particulars on the e-form and then routinely crucify parties where claims have been inadequately pleaded or, in the alternative, to make the online PoC a facility for litigants in person only 

And the online 'request judgment' button should be for LiPs and non-represented SMEs and sole traders only.

And ban legal firms from 'fronting' claim fees for parking firms. They exert far too much control in exchange for a share of enhanced proceeds and this cuts to lack of professional (distanced) integrity and a conflict of interests, as a real solicitor's first duty is to the court.

Damages based agreements/contingency fee agreements absolutely have their place for things that work for the greater good but NOT in a sector already known to be in market failure and causing immense consumer harm.

And 'running' car parks or roadways without charging the landowner is clearly a close to 'protect racket' business model. Free or 'peppercorn' landowner agreements should be banned.

No other service works 'free' in exchange for the right for a leechlike company A to intimidate and sue the customers, residents, patrons and even vulnerable patients and disabled visitors of host company B.

And there's this list of ideas from @antigrifter

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625104/public-consultation-question-33-suggested-response

Car1980

1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

I am unclear how a Keeper who was not the Driver is liable for anything other than the original £100 parking charge.

There is nothing in the POF Act that makes the Keeper liable for recovery fees, court fees, solicitors fees or interest.

ParkingMad

Protest said:

A tight cap on DVLA access might be a much faster route to a solution. 

There are no sanctions for PPCs when they fail the DVLA audit. These are the latest results.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/giaa_audit_results_of_private_pa_4#comment-122860