IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Parking Code of Practice Consultation - remember remember the 5 September - it closes next week!

Coupon-mad
Coupon-mad Posts: 153,389 Forumite
Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
edited 25 August at 10:10AM in Parking tickets, fines & parking
Let's use this thread to discuss the questions:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice

I have concerns about omissions and poor assumptions in the Options Assessment:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81593749/#Comment_81593749

You don't have to answer every question nor supply 'data' but CASE EVIDENCE IS GOOD. If you want to fully understand the proposals, read the 56 page Options Assessment.

The MHCLG much prefer responses to be provided using Citizen Space.

It's important your responses are your own opinion.
If you want guidance, my thoughts are as follows:

Q1 & 2 - self explanatory.
Questions 3-6 for PPCs only.

Ideas on questions 7, 8 & 9 here:

Caps on parking charges:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81598754/#Comment_81598754

________________________________________________________________________

Ideas on questions 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 here

REALLY IMPORTANT SECTION - Debt Recovery Fees:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81598756/#Comment_81598756

Further notes on how this abusive model 'works' and why the DRF must IMHO be banned:

Some statements made by the MHCLG are wide of the mark. This isn't true:
" A view was expressed by motorist groups that allowing parking operators to charge debt recovery fees of up to £70 had the effect of extracting money from individuals who opted to engage with the process, thereby covering the costs of those who did not."

No, that view was never said by motorist groups. The truth is this: the 87% of people who reach DRA threatogram stage but don't pay £170 (ending up trapped) have often engaged until they are blue in the face, and cannot be written off as 'people who didn't opt to engage with the process'.

The majority of the 87% we see here are people:

- with multiple unfair PCNs (often at their own home car park) who have no option but court, or
- whose disputes were ignored and attempts to engage were refused by a DRA, or
- refused their right to appeal as keeper.  Lies told by a PPC: 'only a driver can appeal', or
- had a Transfers of Liability refused by a PPC or DRA lying about a (false) 28 day cut off, or
- who have spurious PCNs that no right thinking person would pay, or
- having unfairly lost farcical appeals at the IAS or POPLA are now corralled to court, or
- who never knew about the pre-action letters because PPCs failed to do a soft trace to find a new address before litigation.

Are you are one of those people? Please tell & show the Government if you engaged, begged to be heard, even rang a DRA and were knocked back, made to think the only option was to pay up.

Bottom line: adding £70 has the effect of DRAs not being paid if they do the right thing.

Because they aren't paid a penny for handling Transfers of Liability, valid disputes et al, our evidence - actual letters & emails from DRAs shown in pictures on thread after thread - shows they INVARIABLY JUST DON'T SPEND TIME BOTHERING TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

The Joint Code made this worse as it dropped the BPA's mandatory reminder letters x 2, unfairly restricts keepers from appealing and has re-written the 2022 Code in their favour.

Some 'assumptions' in the Consultation should be called out, e.g.:
  • "If the proportion of those paying does not change, our analysis suggests that debt recovery agencies would ‘break even’ (with costs that are equal to revenue) with a DRF of approximately £26. If DRFs were set below this level, this may impact the ability of debt recovery agencies to continue operating in this space and limit the availability of the debt recovery process as an option for parking operators to recover unpaid parking charges. This could increase the proportion of parking cases ending up in the court system and incurring associated costs."
And in the 56 page Options Assessment (that alarmingly, provides NO OPTIONS AT ALL TO CHANGE THE DRF £70 CAP) it says under 'Government Guidance':
  • "Evidence gathered through MHCLG user research and desk research in summer 2024 suggests that there is misinformation online, and motorists find it difficult to easily access clear and reliable guidance on what to expect throughout their interactions with the private parking industry. Motorists tend to seek out this information after receiving a PCN. This misinformation makes it harder for motorists to make informed choices about what to do ... and can result in motorists paying for parking charges which should have been cancelled if they went to appeal or, at the other extreme, motorists ending up with County Court judgments because they failed to engage in the process."
No, that's rubbish, except in cases where people later got bullied into paying. Not engaging with DRAs doesn't cause people to 'have to pay' later on. Defendants with valid disputes invariably win.

There's substantial case evidence of DRAs refusing to even listen to disputes - can YOU evidence that in your case?

Here's a really important point to make: both PPCs and DRAs make more money when a case is escalated because they share the spoils and a PPC makes more than face value of the PCN. Yep ...the PPC gets rewarded with more than PCN face value, for doing nothing.

________________________________________________________________________

Ideas on questions 15 & 16, below

Signage 

Question 15(a): Do you agree that the Government Code should drop the reference to 60cm x 80cm signage size representing best practice, noting the proposed requirement that signs be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach?

Might surprise some, but I'll put: AGREE

Question 15(b): Please explain your answer 

My opinion:

Because this will give PPCs the excuse to ask for another 2 year 'grandfather period' to make changes to their signs. It will also cost the industry money, so leave the signs alone. Any delay now leaves the way open for the APAs to make yet more anti-consumer changes to their Joint Code.

And because it is perhaps a step too far for the MHCLG (who are not signage experts) to impose a minimum signage size. This is better assessed later with knowledge, evidence and data gathered by the Scrutiny Board and by the Lead Adjudicator. Let the industry carry on with the signs as they exist now (all audited?!) and as long as we have a proper Single Appeals Service, any poor signs will be exposed on a site by site basis.

This in turn will create some useful 'key cases' about signage, to drive up standards.

Pay before exit in car parks using ANPR  

Question 16(a): Do you agree that a parking charge should not be issued to a motorist who makes a full payment before leaving a carpark which uses ANPR?

I will say: STRONGLY AGREE

Question 16(b): Please explain your answer

I suggest you expand the answer to add that the new clause should use the word MUST (mandatory) and not 'should' (advisory) and this wording must go further & include:

"a parking charge must not be issued to a motorist authorised/invited to use a 'permitted users' car park who inputs their VRM (or otherwise exempts their vehicle, such as adding it to a visitor list) before leaving a car park which uses ANPR"

________________________________________________________________________

Consideration and Grace Periods

Ideas on q 17 linked here - I'll say NO - I doubt motorists will disagree?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81598757/#Comment_81598757

________________________________________________________________________

Reduced charge for certain mitigating circumstances

Ideas on questions 18 - 20 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81598758/#Comment_81598758


________________________________________________________________________

Additional mitigation for the 'Appeals Charter' *

Ideas on question 21 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81598408/#Comment_81598408

* Background: At ‘Annex F.3’ in the Withdrawn Code there is a list of circumstances which must be recognised as mitigating circumstances when considering appeal decisions. In future, this is to be known as the Appeals Charter

________________________________________________________________________

Process for appealing parking charges

Ideas on questions 22, 23 & 24

Question 22 (a). Do you agree that where an appeal outside of the normal 28 day appeal period is considered (where the appellant provides evidence of exceptional circumstances for the appeal not being lodged within the normal timeframes), the 28 day period should restart and that any enforcement action should be paused, or where the enforcement action is court proceedings the parking operator should be required to apply for a stay in those proceedings? 

I will say: AGREE

Question 22(b). The Single Appeals Service must be an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service (fully independent and impartial, not the IAS or POPLA). As such, the ADR being available after 28 days in exceptional circumstances will keep cases out of court. The Single Appeals Service must replace the current only ADR in the parking industry: the IAS non-standard appeal must end. As the only ADR, it is only right that it can be used after court claims too.


Question 23 (a). Do you agree that a motorist should be allowed to appeal after the parking charge has been paid where: i) the parking charge had to be paid in order to release a vehicle e.g. on site to release a barrier?

I will say: STRONGLY AGREE

and/or

ii) Evidence subsequently identified suggests wrongdoing by the parking operator in respect of the issue of the notice? 

STRONGLY AGREE

Question 23(b). here are my answers, not intended as a template:

My reasoning behind (i), "the parking charge had to be paid in order to release a vehicle e.g. on site to release a barrier" is to stop operators setting up chains, rising bay bollards and barriers as a form of legalised immobilisation, in order to force people to pay to be released. The POFA 2012 allows barriers to be used.

This provision will be abused if there is no right to appeal afterwards. There must be that right. On street, if your car is clamped or towed away, there is a right to appeal and this is no different.

My reasoning behind (ii) "Evidence subsequently identified suggests wrongdoing by the parking operator in respect of the issue of the notice" - doesn't need explaining why this has to be a ground to appeal a PCN later than 28 days. Evidence of wrongdoing cannot be tolerated or ignored, or allowed to feed through to court unchallenged.


Question 24(a).

I will say: STRONGLY AGREE to both parts.

Question 24(b): here are my answers, not intended as a template:

My answer to "If a parking charge notice is served but not responded to, the keeper may still identify the driver and that liability of the keeper falls in favour of that of the driver who may still then exercise their right of appeal?"

YES! The POFA Schedule 4 allows a keeper to nominate the driver at any time before court action commences. This was even published by the BPA in Parking News after they sought legal advice on this to clarify the timeline for Transferring Liability. Parking News, April 2020 confirmed it:

***SCS Law on what it means to 'begin proceedings' (transfer liability)***
They confirm the correct interpretation. PPCs make it up about an imaginary '28 day deadline to transfer liability'. Not according to the law or the BPA.

Second question - my answer to "If a notice to keeper is sent and any appeal is rejected, the keeper may still identify the driver and that liability of the keeper falls in favour of that of the driver who may still then exercise their right of appeal?"

Yes of course. This may be somewhat inconvenient but it will cause duplication of cost only in an incredibly small percentage of cases! We know only 1% of appellants use second stage appeal, and a negligible number of those will later transfer liability as well. The industry knows and an AA study confirmed that most people pay if they lose at appeal, even if they feel the PCN was unfair.

The industry won't like this but they can keep records of how often this happens, for later review. Also, the Single Appeals Service could keep records of how often this happens and whether outcomes tend to change or not, for drivers who appeal after a keeper has failed when disputing that PCN at appeal. This contract law, not penalties and these must be treated differently than local authority PCNs. There is a Consumer Rights Act requirement for fairness and it is the driver who is primarily liable, so of course they have every right to go through the process.

The newly-named driver may never even have seen a PCN or any evidence, due to the propensity of PPCs to go straight for registered keepers. It could be a year later by the time a driver is served with a PCN! Of course they can't be sued without any fair access to ADR first.

There's minimal extra work for a PPC who has already sent an evidence pack to the Single Appeals Service. The duplication will be minor, with all photos and evidence already collated from when the keeper appealed. The PPC might just tweak some words about why the driver is liable but none of the rest of the evidence pack will need changing at all, unless the driver raises something different by way of dispute...but that is their right under POFA and under appeal and ADR principles.

________________________________________________________________________

Where parking tariff exceeds the parking charge

Data

Scrutiny and Oversight Board

Ideas re questions 25, 27 & 28 is here (q26 leave blank):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81537265/#Comment_81537265

________________________________________________________________________


'Guidance' - Questions 29 & 30

Question 29(a): Do you agree that government should publish clear and easily understandable non-statutory guidance for motorists alongside the Government Code?

STRONGLY DISAGREE

Question 29(b): my reasons: Whilst on the face of it, this seems reasonable idea, now is not the time. It looks very much like this came from the parking industry, to muddy the waters and confuse the press, the public and judges. It will give weight to a consumer blame culture which is completely inappropriate at this stage, flowing from this legislation.

My opinion: The Act was never about the conduct of motorists. We cannot have two sets of 'Guidance' coming out together. There may be a place for certain Guidance at first review.

Discussed recently HERE:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81598735/#Comment_81598735

Question 30(a): Do you agree that parking operators should be required to provide a link to Government guidance on all correspondence with motorists from the point of receiving a parking charge?

STRONGLY DISAGREE

Question 30(b): my reasons: Absolutely not now! There must NOT be a secondary, pseudo-Code for consumers to be pushed to read. PPCs and DRAs will quote the supposed 'Guidance' to make consumers feel that a PCN is their fault. It will clutter up PCNs and confuse recipients who would almost certainly only read the 'Guidance for Motorists', thinking that the Code is for PPCs only.

It's untrue to say that: "The proposal to develop government guidance has been previously welcomed by both industry and motorist representative groups."  I don't recall being asked before the Consultation ambushed with this.

The truth is probably, IMHO that the two APAs pushed for this and would love to muddy the waters about consumer 'fault' (that they will co-write) to mute the impact of the new Code.

More will be added as links here this week so please bookmark the thread and come back!
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
 Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
«134567…14

Comments

  • Thorndorise
    Thorndorise Posts: 353 Forumite
    100 Posts First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 11 July at 11:53AM
    Link to the new code here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

    Annex A: proposed minor corrections/clarifications to the withdrawn code here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686bf108fe1a249e937cbdb2/private-parking-consultation-annex-a.pdf

    Options assessment here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686d45d281dd8f70f5de3cac/private-parking-consultation-options-assessment.pdf


    Online survey of responses: https://consult.communities.gov.uk/off-road-parking-team/private-parking-code-of-practice-consultation/

    OR Downloadable questions: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be7d9a08d3a3ca3b67845/private-parking-consultation-questions.pdf
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 153,389 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 25 August at 9:34AM

    Where parking tariff exceeds the parking charge

    Question 25 (a): Do you agree with the proposal to clarify that where the parking tariff exceeds the parking charge, the full payment of the tariff may be pursued alongside payment of the parking charge?

    AGREE

    Question 25(b): Agree; it made no sense in that PPCs could only pursue the tariff (no deterrent value, and tariffs sometime go to the client which would make the Withdrawn Code version unworkable) but:

    (a) the PCN issued must offer the usual discount and appeal. The case is no different in that respect.

    (b) the MHCLG must keep this clause under review in case of abuse, e.g. PPCs leasing small pockets of land with small signs with a deliberately high tariff or unexpectedly high escalation of tariffs, alongside faulty machines or flaky apps. This is why the data collected by government MUST include the postcode of each site (or anonymised site identifier) to expose 'cash cow' locations quickly.

    Question 26: leave blank - PPCs only


    Data

    Question 27(a): Do you agree with the proposal that a Government Code of Practice will mandate that the trade associations should collect data from their private parking operators members and share it with Government and the Scrutiny and Oversight Board?

    I will say: STRONGLY AGREE

    Question 27(b): Please explain your answer 

    I will put something like this:

    Whilst this is a very important addition, the MHCLG has missed out two of the most important questions:

    (a) to identify the postcode of each site (or an anonymised site identifier) to expose 'cash cow' locations quickly.

    and

    (b) to identify the reason for issue of PCNs at the operator's sites. If they are almost all overstays, or almost all 'non-payment of a tariff', or lots of 'PCN plus the tariff' high value ones, the MHCLG and Standards Board will never know.


    The Scrutiny and Oversight Board

    Question 28(a): Do you agree that the Scrutiny and Oversight Board should be made up of people not associated with the private parking industry, motorist groups or government officials, so that they can independently review data on the Code’s efficacy?

    I will say: STRONGLY AGREE

    Question 28(b): Please explain your answer 

    I will put something like this:

    Whilst the SOB being fully independent is a welcome safeguard, the same cannot be said of the Conformity and Assessment Bodies. It is well publicised in Parking News, and at Parkex, that the CABs will be made up of people from the parking industry and from the BPA and IPC.

    Those persons will still have allegiances or their erstwhile employers and trade bodies (it seems that most of them worked for PPCs in the past).Not only will the CAB auditors be marking their mates' homework, but there has been no assurance that 'auditors' must not audit firms where they used to work or have a conflict of interest. CAB auditors must be required to declare all previous PPC or DRA employers before they start work for the CAB. They MUST NOT audit or sign off any firms where there is a personal conflict of interest.

    There is also no reassurance coming from the MHCLG to suggest that the IPC and POPLA will be removed, banned and replaced by a Single Appeals Service, as the Parking (Code of Practice Act) 2019 specifically added by an amendment during its journey through Parliament. When questioned by other MPs, to everyone's alarm, the Minister responsible talked about 'improving' second stage appeals.

    The IPC in particular, is considered unfit for purpose and cannot continue in my opinion.

    It is particularly imperative that the MHCLG immediately removes the non-standard IAS version that charges appellants £15 to lose and also (so the Lead Adjudicator says in his flimsy 'Annual Reports') sign away their right to be heard in court. It is astonishing that this 'service' that allows as low as just 4% of appeals decided in favour of consumers is still a CTSI ADR entity.

    IMHO it must be removed from the sector before this iteration of the statutory Code and not given any pedestal or status whatsoever. It is not enough to appoint a SOB that will only find all this out two years down the line.

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
     Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • ChirpyChicken
    ChirpyChicken Posts: 1,708 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 11 July at 3:17PM


    And an interesting take here 
    https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/367325/parking-fines-rise-govt-cosies-operators-code-practice-review
  • Kaizen2024
    Kaizen2024 Posts: 126 Forumite
    100 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 12 July at 2:52PM
    Someone has messed up on an excel sheet formula there, DRA’s do not have a 63% profit margin 
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture