Roxburghe

trisontana

"and all other persons having any proprietary possessory or other financial material interest in the vehicle and its contents."

If you follow that twisted logic, then that would include HP and finance companies who technically "own" some or all of the car. I think Roxburgh would be told to "get lost" if they ever tried to go after them.

HO87

BarryW wrote: »

I notice the advice to ignore these letters for Private Parking Charges and one of the basis is that the contract is with the driver not the keeper.

Roxburghe have obviously got wind to this and now include a section that says:

"Under the Terms and Conditions with the Parking Enforcement Notice it is important to note the every person who enters into a contract with the company for the parking of a vehicle at the Car Park, whether by purchasing a ticket or otherwise , does so on on behalf of himself and all other persons having any proprietary possessory or other financial material interest in the vehicle and its contents.

Whilst writing we would like to draw your attention to a common law doctrine of the law of agency, which confirms that a principal (registered keeper) is liable for the acts of its agent (the driver). As a result of this, it is our intention to pursue the registered keeper/owner of the vehicle in the absence of driver specifics".

Interestingly we appealed this ticket and heard nothing from them.

I'd like to fight this lot but I am aware of the advise that if they know your are listening they will go more.

What utter, utter tosh. Clearly they are as unfamiliar with the concept of privity as they would appear to be with that of reality. If they intend now to rely on agency as a means of scooping up registered keepers the onus remains on the claimant (in this case Roxburghe's principals) to prove that there was an explicit or implied duty, agreement or contract of one to act for the other. This is the worst kind of misinterpretation I have seen yet. One must hope that it is just a genuine mistake and is quickly corrected.

Were this to be true finance companies aplenty would find themselves liable together with banks and insurance companies and I don't suppose for a minute that Roxburghe's colleagues in the various credit associations would be overly impressed by this suggestion (sorry: trisontana).

If R's are really, truly suggesting that this is the terms of the parking sign concerned then this term is unenforceable at law and would on the face of it render then entire so-called contract so. No one can abrogate the rights of another (a third party) and this is fundamental to the law of contract. Oh, and R's don't go quoting novation. All parties must agree not just those directly involved.

bromsgrovebarry

Oh dear this reeks of desperation. Times are getting hard for PPCs and their debt hounds. With luck, their 'enterprise' will cease to become viable and it cannot come a minute too soon.

magpiecottage

BarryW wrote: »

I notice the advice to ignore these letters for Private Parking Charges and one of the basis is that the contract is with the driver not the keeper.

Roxburghe have obviously got wind to this and now include a section that says:

"Under the Terms and Conditions with the Parking Enforcement Notice it is important to note the every person who enters into a contract with the company for the parking of a vehicle at the Car Park, whether by purchasing a ticket or otherwise , does so on on behalf of himself and all other persons having any proprietary possessory or other financial material interest in the vehicle and its contents.

Whilst writing we would like to draw your attention to a common law doctrine of the law of agency, which confirms that a principal (registered keeper) is liable for the acts of its agent (the driver). As a result of this, it is our intention to pursue the registered keeper/owner of the vehicle in the absence of driver specifics".

OFT Debt Collection Guidance Final Guidance on unfair business practices includes, among unfair practices listed, "falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally
cannot" (paragraph 2.4c) and pursuing third parties for payment when they are not liable (paragraph 2.4f)

backfoot

More bizarre by the second. :wall: Desperation indeed.

esmerobbo

They should never have given the tea boy that "law for dummies book" for Christmas.:snow_grin

HO87

As Roxburghe's quote purports to come from LDK's sign perhaps we should have a closer look at LDK? I vaguely recall them being Milton Keynes/Luton based but haven't looked further into them for a while.

Perhaps LDK have engaged a certain consultant formerly of CPS as their legal advisor?

bromsgrovebarry

Hmmm it could be Simple Simon (aka the pie man). Sounds like his take on the law.

HO87

Ahh, he of the dating sites. I think you're right and I think I've seem him push this line before somewhere. Perhaps he's moved from the Midlands to Surrey?

bromsgrovebarry

Perhaps we had better issue a 'lock up your daughters' warning to the good people of Surrey if the 'Don Juan' of parking enforcement is on the loose.