Parking Code of Practice Consultation 2025 - now let's see what happens

Nellymoser

It's not only the debt fees but the practice of the DRAs. The consultation survey in the debt fees section states
"This government is committed to ensuring that motorists are not intimidated during the debt recovery stage and that they are not misled, resulting in them taking a decision that they might not otherwise have taken."
But the document then gives no details (well none I can see) on how the Govt plans to achieve this.

patient_dream

But the document then gives no details (well none I can see) on how the Govt plans to achieve this. 

What can we expect from a Government who seems clueless ....... if they allow the fake £70, the government will then allow EXTORTION ...... we will see ???

Le_Kirk

11 Do you agree that it is reasonable for motorists to be charged an additional sum to cover the costs relating to recovering unpaid invoices,

also known as debt recovery fees?

Strongly Disagree

Please explain your answer :

At the point that the PPC tries to implement debt recovery fees, there is no proven debt, it is merely a speculative invoice and hasn't been ratified by a judge. There is or should be, no need for debt recovery fees as any and all admin should be included, just like any business overheads, in the initial charge. PPCs do not pay fees to recover the debt, they try to use the small claims system to do this work for them. Debt Recovery Agents work on a no-win no-fee basis.

12 If you agree that there should be a charge, which of the following cap levels do you think is reasonable for debt recovery fees?

Not Answered

Please explain your answer :

I do not agree that there should be a charge. I cannot move on until I have ticked a box therefore I ticked £1-£19

Excerpt from some of my answers, making it clear that Debt Recovery Fees are NOT required.  Also a typical example of a poorly written survey by not giving an option to select £0. By making a selection at any price/cost it is apparently showing me as agreeing with debt collection fees, whereas my view is the exact opposite!

Coupon-mad

I cannot move on until I have ticked a box therefore I ticked £1-£19

Don't tick any box and don't fill anything in there. Can you then move on? This is really important because I need to alert the MHCLG if you cannot avoid ticking a box that has a £.

Coupon-mad

I just tested it myself and you can leave Q12 blank (after Strongly Disagreeing with Q11) so DO NOT answer Q12 and do NOT tick a £ box! If you do, the AI will take that tick box and add you to the £1-£19 votes, regardless of comments.

Re Q11:

The 'no win no fee' DRA model (they only get paid a % of the DRF* and only when they successfully collect) means that DRAs are not paid anything if they do the right thing and act in the interests of disputing motorists, such as bothering to spend more than a nanosecond 'pretending to consider' disputes and the Code of Practice Appeals Charter, returning a spurious or mitigation case to the client to cancel, or to allowing a Transfer of Liability.

The government code of practice "must contain guidance that promotes good practice in the operation and management of private parking facilities".

In terms of the DRF all proposals in the Options Assessment fail to promote good practice because none of them intend to even alter the DRF cap let alone ban it and call it out as the double recovery that it is.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

I cannot move on until I have ticked a box therefore I ticked £1-£19

Don't tick any box and don't fill anything in there. Can you then move on? This is really important because I need to alert the MHCLG if you cannot avoid ticking a box that has a £.

I tried not ticking  a box but could not move on, that's why I ticked the lowest available and made a point of noting my dissatisfaction with the way the survey had been written.  Too late to change it as it has been submitted.

Nellymoser

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

Page 12 last paragraph:

'Some operators are engaging in poor practices by withholding information or using misleading tactics so that motorists are not aware of their rights e.g. changes to the parking charge fee, the appeals system or debt recovery. In addition, the proliferation of discussion threads in online motorist forums has obvious potential to give motorists a large amount of advice which may be inconsistent, incomplete, unclear or out of date, given that it will not always have been verified or kept under regular review by trustworthy sources. It also contributes to increasing pressure within the court system as the number of cases reaching court continues to increase.'

When people complete the survey I'd urge them to say where they found the accurate advice and where the misinformation (if any received) came from. 

Group Nexus and BPA AOS team mislead me, parking forum (MSE) and online searches was where I found the accurate info. The MHCLG need to know this.

Castle

Nellymoser said:

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

Page 12 last paragraph:

'Some operators are engaging in poor practices by withholding information or using misleading tactics so that motorists are not aware of their rights e.g. changes to the parking charge fee, the appeals system or debt recovery. In addition, the proliferation of discussion threads in online motorist forums has obvious potential to give motorists a large amount of advice which may be inconsistent, incomplete, unclear or out of date, given that it will not always have been verified or kept under regular review by trustworthy sources. It also contributes to increasing pressure within the court system as the number of cases reaching court continues to increase.'

The Government, (in question 29), want to bring in "Non Statutory Guidance" for motorists-which is not going solve these problems.

Coupon-mad

Both of those would have come from the parking industry and the MHCLG has quoted it as if it's true.

Hurley has been pushing for years for 'motorist guidance' (i.e. it props up the usual consumer blame culture that his members could potentially then use to wriggle out of responsibility to comply with aspects of the Code).

Nellymoser

Castle said:

Nellymoser said:

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

Page 12 last paragraph:

'Some operators are engaging in poor practices by withholding information or using misleading tactics so that motorists are not aware of their rights e.g. changes to the parking charge fee, the appeals system or debt recovery. In addition, the proliferation of discussion threads in online motorist forums has obvious potential to give motorists a large amount of advice which may be inconsistent, incomplete, unclear or out of date, given that it will not always have been verified or kept under regular review by trustworthy sources. It also contributes to increasing pressure within the court system as the number of cases reaching court continues to increase.'

The Government, (in question 29), want to bring in "Non Statutory Guidance" for motorists-which is not going solve these problems.

I think that could be a good idea if it was more along the lines of a fact sheet of info and it banished the untruths we often find in the industry's correspondence and practice.

I felt it could stop the less knowledgeable pcn recipients believing what the industry's says, envisaging all sorts of nasties happening and frantically searching online for verification. I don't think it should tell us how to appeal, the pcn does that.

I suggested in my Q29 the pcn should contain a link to the fact sheet and a link to Govt CoP along with a statement saying 'we (the operator) adhere to this code should you feel we haven’t contact us @xxxx.' Much more beneficial than a link to Beavis.