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

Castle

I make that 43 "Greens", 11 "Ambers" and 36 "Reds"; so, a 40% failure rate.

Humdinger1

It would be interesting to know the criteria for each band, no? In the real world, they might all be red...

Coupon-mad

Re the question about APPEALS:

If anyone is still perfecting your responses, don't forget this as part of your answer as to what's wrong with the current appeals set up:

Since the Joint Code tried to restrict appeals to block registered keepers from their legal right to appeal against a parking charge, several operators have (in 2024/25) changed their appeals pages to block keeper appeals and make it seem that appealing is conditional on naming the driver.

This is a civil offence by the trader, a 'misleading omission and/or action' under the DMCC Act 2024 ..  but the Joint Code has enabled this rogue conduct.

THE MHCLG MUST REVERSE IT.

A keeper is perfectly entitled to appeal and the law, the BPA and the DVLA agree.

Here's the official stated position on this (thanks to Siross for this useful DVLA email).

It is not allowed to appeal to make appeal conditional upon saying who was driving:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64401866#Comment_64401866

That was 11 years ago by David Dunford at the DVLA.

Please show that to the MHCLG too, when answering the question about appeals. If you want to name and shame, we've seen this misleading conduct scammery from:

- SolutionLabs (hybrid debt collector type member) who told a keeper they were 'deleting' their appeal:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6623611/what-next

- SABA, who have reportedly set up a tick box making it mandatory to name the driver;
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6626600/saba-parking-charge-at-bassetlaw-hospital

- Civil Enforcement Ltd who reportedly have made exactly the same change to their appeals page in recent months, DESPITE being ordered by Steve Clark (when he ran the BPA AOS) to remove that exact same tick box about 5 years ago. I know, because I raised that complaint!

( I haven't got a CEL thread to hand to prove this but I recall it has been posted as happening again due to the Joint Code).

Coupon-mad

And re question 33: other matters that the MHCLG should consider:

The fact that the BPA (and the Withdrawn Code) mistakenly dropped the BPA's mandatory reminder letters x 2 now means that we are seeing from ex-clampers CEL and others, a timeline of  'PCN to claim form' in seven weeks flat!

We have NEVER seen these speedy claims before this year and it's all because the BPA dropped clause 24.4 (the two mandatory reminder letters that were in their Code since 2012).

The 2022 Code made a mistake by missing clause 24.4 and those behind the joke 'Joint Code' copied the error, rubbing their hands with glee:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81621141/#Comment_81621141

Please add this to question 33.

Kaizen2024

So to be clear, in some threads the advice is to ignore everything except a LBC; yet you want operators to send multiple repetitive letters 🤦🏻‍♂️

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

So to be clear, in some threads the advice is to ignore everything except a LBC; yet you want operators to send multiple repetitive letters 🤦🏻‍♂️

We (and no doubt MSE and Martin Lewis) will tell people to engage when:

- DRFs are banned, and

- PCNs are proportionate to the allegation, and

- the industry plays fair with issues raised by motorists: e.g. hears valid disputes and recognises ToLs before court, not lying about POFA, not spouting crap about Elliott v Loake, and

- rogue operators get the hell out of residential estates, and

- PPCs use working machines/apps, and

- the scammers cease inventing new ways to scam vulnerable people such as 'bay monitoring' where disabled people are expected to exempt their vehicle as well as display a blue badge (imposing extra burdens just because you want to use AI surveillance) and 

- the scammers stop throwing JRs at the government, and

- there is a Single Appeals Service and

-  the IAS (standard and non-standard) is finally killed off: dead as a dodo.

I don't think your industry realises how useful and powerful MSE (the site and this community) could potentially be to tell people to pay PCNs if they are proportionate and fairly issued. We would, as well. We do with council PCNs, in the main.

Nellymoser

Kaizen2024 said:

So to be clear, in some threads the advice is to ignore everything except a LBC; yet you want operators to send multiple repetitive letters 🤦🏻‍♂️

No, God spare us. Multiple repetitive letters will not be required. A couple will suffice.

I don't know why Kaizen appears bemused by this. Seems to me it’s not dissimilar to parking operators filing huge numbers of court claims they know they'll be discontinuing before the hearing fees are due to be paid.

Car1980

For Question 1

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2vmm21jy3o.amp

Why is the penalty £70 for endangering children's lives on the public highway, but £100 on private land for taking too long to eat your McDonalds?

LoneStarState

given there is only a couple of days left......I just wanted to check I'm not being dim and missing something.  How do we actually attach evidence we may have to support our answers or is it the case that we are just taken at our word or can only provide links?

Coupon-mad

You should be able to attach evidence. If not, send them a separate email with it attached.