MSE News: Wheel clamping ban moves closer

Flyboy152

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I can't see that part getting through Parliament, Bills change a lot along the way! :T

And I think the person who was driving my car the day it was issued with a PPC piece of bogroll sadly died...or maybe moved to Australia...one or the other...anyway good luck with that Euro Car Parks!

Oh, so now it is convenient to suit your agenda, that bills can change before they come laws. Who knows, maybe the bit about private clamping will not make it through either.

taffy056

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Oh really?



I do not recall calling anyone on here ignorant or the like. However, behaviour like that is all too common when a poster appears and disagrees with the so-called crusaders of motorists, the ones who condone trespass parking and cocking a snoot at the private landowner.

Who condones abuse of a private owners land on here ? Really you are putting words in people's mouths, everyone of the people who contributes to this section on regular basis says the same thing, pay in legitimate charges to park a vehicle, but don't pay a ppc their invoices as they are unforceable .

Your problem is that you shout abuse in your posts on regular basis on here, if you wish I will link them , and that quote you mention is not abuse!

Altarf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I can't see that part getting through Parliament, Bills change a lot along the way!

I can. Tweaked slightly, maybe. Substantial changes, I doubt it.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And I think the person who was driving my car the day it was issued with a PPC piece of bogroll sadly died...or maybe moved to Australia...one or the other...anyway good luck with that Euro Car Parks!

Good luck, people are serving time in jail for similar lies in an attempt to avoid liability for much more serious issues than a parking fee.

ripped_off_driver

Altarf wrote: »

So clamping will be banned, but 'private parking fines' become legal and enforceable against the keeper unless they name the driver, when it enforceable against the driver.

This is not correct. What the Bill currently confers is a right to claim against the RK if the driver is not known. It is not an obligation to pay on the part of the RK. The PPC will still need to take the RK to court, prove that a contract was entered into and that the charge is not a penalty. Naturally the RK if he or she was not the driver will be at a complete disadvantage, but it doesn't mean the PPC will be successful.

So on this level the change is not a great departure from what we have. The PPCs are reluctant to face court not just because of driver ID issues but the whole raft of other issues they have to prove, including contract formation and lack of unlawful penalty. Large scale litigation is not cost effective.

The problem is that we know the PPCs, being well known liars and cheats, will spin this for all they are worth as a RK obligation to pay. Expect "Under the Protection of Freedoms act 2011 you the registered keper of the vehicle are responsible for the charge as we cannot ID the driver." Nothing about the fact that we now have to go to court and prove our case. This is the real issue as to why this proposal must be resisted, as well as obviously counter to the protection of freedoms to try to impute responsibility for the actions of one party to another.

Flyboy152

taffy056 wrote: »

Who condones abuse of a private owners land on here ? Really you are putting words in people's mouths, everyone of the people who contributes to this section on regular basis says the same thing, pay in legitimate charges to park a vehicle, but don't pay a ppc their invoices as they are unforceable .

Your problem is that you shout abuse in your posts on regular basis on here, if you wish I will link them , and that quote you mention is not abuse!

I didn't accuse anyone of abuse, I wrote:

Someone who doesn't agree with their point of view and they all shoot him down

Quite different to:

shout abuse

Wouldn't you say.

But then you deny that even happened, but when someone accusing them of being too young to engage with, which really doesn't leave much to the imagination, about how much respect the poster is affords the one they are responding to. Hardly the sort of adult debate one would hope for on MSE.

And you want to find errant posts of mine and take them out of context, be my guest. You couldn't lose any more integrity or honour than you have already.

Altarf

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

This is not correct. What the Bill currently confers is a right to claim against the RK if the driver is not known. It is not an obligation to pay on the part of the RK.

But it takes away the "I don't know who was driving, and I am not telling you even if I did" argument. And it confers legitimacy on the "parking charge” that can be recovered from the RK, since it is defined in the proposed legislation as "a fee or charge (however described) required to be paid by the driver of the vehicle under the terms of the relevant contract in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land".

So "free parking for 2 hours, £50 for if you want to park for longer than 2 hours", or "free parking if you are displaying a badge from ABC, otherwise £50" becomes nice and legal, and the £50 recoverable from the RK.

taffy056

They would still need to take the RK to court and justify their charges, really a lot of people already admit to being the driver, but are still not taken to the small claims, we already have an appeal process in place called the courts, it's funny that is not used by the PPCs now, wonder why ?

ripped_off_driver

Altarf wrote: »

But it takes away the "I don't know who was driving, and I am not telling you even if I did" argument.

Agreed

Altarf wrote: »

And it confers legitimacy on the "parking charge” that can be recovered from the RK, since it is defined in the proposed legislation as "a fee or charge (however described) required to be paid by the driver of the vehicle under the terms of the relevant contract in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land".

So "free parking for 2 hours, £50 for if you want to park for longer than 2 hours", or "free parking if you are displaying a badge from ABC, otherwise £50" becomes nice and legal, and the £50 recoverable from the RK.

This I don't agree with. The PPC will still need to prove that a contract exists. And simply because a charge is named on a sign and is claimable from the RK does not mean that it is not an unlawful penalty,under the rules in the Dunlop case. The court will rule on this aspect.

taffy056

Flyboy,

It's funny you saying about adult debate, you have yet to do that yourself, we have offered advice about your situation but you shout them all down and dismiss everything out of hand, then demand that the users of this forum come out with a solution to your needs, despite the fact that we don't know the lay of the land, whether you have applied for planning, whether you have asked the landlord, and so on.

On here you have offered nothing at all to this thread, only to show that you don't want to debate, you only want to shout your abuse on here accusing people of endorsing abuse of land and encouraging people to do that, you are obviously not worthy of debate as you are acting the troll on here, needless to say this will my last response to you on here !

Altarf

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

The PPC will still need to prove that a contract exists. And simply because a charge is named on a sign and is claimable from the RK does not mean that it is not an unlawful penalty,under the rules in the Dunlop case. The court will rule on this aspect.

Provided the charge the PPC makes is not excessive, I doubt the courts will trouble themselves too much with this.

It is a well established principal that car park operators charge variable prices to encourage some users and discourage others. So a park for free or low price for a set time, and then a higher price thereafter can be seen operating in virtually every 'normal' car park, whether operated by the council or a private car park operator. I doubt that the courts would not allow a PPC at, for example a supermarket, to do the same (provided the charging structure is not excessive).

The PPC's will need to give some thought to how they deal with people who are allowed to park if they pay a fee, but don't pay the fee (e.g. don't buy a pay and display ticket). But it should not be insurmountable, "£1 per hour if you buy a ticket, £1 per hour plus a £50 administration fee for us to send you the ticket if you don't".

Undoubtedly there will be some PPCs that will push the envelope, but if they have any sense, the vast increase in the number of tickets that they will be able to issue and (according to the equality impact assessments prepared for the bill) an increase from 75% to 90% payment should keep their profits up.