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

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Some of the supposed 'minor tweaks' to the withdrawn code are objectionable so we mustn't miss that question.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