MSE News: Wheel clamping ban moves closer

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

So if the registered keeper is responsible for the charge, hire a car and park where you want, it's okay avis / hertz et al are at fault

Depends how exactly you hire it ..if you hire it on a "one driver only " basis ..then the hire company simply name you as the driver to the PPC !

As has happened to me ...strangey the same PPC that sent four letters to me re my car only sent one re this and then gave up.

To me that shows that where they know they can't scare the R/K into paying then they don't bother to chase the driver even when they know exactly who it is(wonder why ..no contract..or unfair contract ?) ...gotta love APCOA lol.
Shows they know as well as we do that what they are doing is a scam with no legal basis ..why else would they g ve up so easily on a known driver case but continue to harass the same person as a keeper on an unknown driver case ?

Sirdan

trisontana wrote: »

I agree. How they can ever prove that the RK (who may not have been present when the car was parked) had agreed to the so-called contract, when they were never there to read the T&Cs posted up in the car-park.

What should have been included in that bill is legislation to stop PPCs and DCA being "economical with the truth". These include implying certain procedures (such as Norwich Pharma and "civil disclosure 3.16) can be used in the small claims court, that CCJs and bailiffs will materialise without the case going to court, and one I highlighted yesterday in the letters sticky, where a PPC is threatening to come to somebody's house and clamp their car because of an unpaid parking ticket.

If the BPA wants the private parking industry to become respectable, then it must stop its members telling lies.

The PPC don't have to PROVE anything ..what they have to do is "establish on balance of probabilities" that is very different indeed .

Most private vehicle insurance policies are on the basis that the holder of the policy is " the registered keeper AND the main driver".
That said a District Judge in a County Court, which sets no legal precedent, may well form the opinion that on balance of probability...if the R/K is not prepared to name anyone else as the driver and offers no evidence to support that they were not the driver ..then on probability they were the driver ...
If the R/K liability is entacted then R/K's would do well to bear the above in mind when defending a claim ..unfair contract defences are probably more likely to succeed than " not me guv ..no contract " ones ...just my opinion of course ..i am not legally qualified.

taffy056

Sirdan wrote: »

The PPC don't have to PROVE anything ..what they have to do is "establish on balance of probabilities" that is very different indeed .

Yes but that would still mean they have to take the driver to court to take it further, over a million invoices a year, 60% not paying and ignoring, you do the maths it will never work even if they know who was driving.

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

Yes but that would still mean they have to take the driver to court to take it further, over a million invoices a year, 60% not paying and ignoring, you do the maths it will never work even if they know who was driving.

No it means they can take the R/K because statute law will say they can.

As it stands they could have their claim struck out before it even begins on the basis that they have no evidence at all that they are claiming against the correct person.

As I read it the new Schedule 4 opens the door for them to proceed against the R/K regardless and to test the argument that I already posted re probability of the R/K being the driver when they refuse to name another driver or offer any evidence to show they were not ...

The difference is subtle but it does shift the goalposts slightly in favour of the PPC.

taffy056

They send an invoice, they ask to identify the driver, you name yourself 'Fred Bloggs' as the driver, then that's it you have complied you are not hiding anything, now that has been sorted the only way forward is to take it to court, can you see them paying 600k x £30 to go in that way ? The whole small claims track will collapse, the ppc's will also collapse by paying to do this, also they would need to employ at least 2 or 3 people to lurk in every car park, the whole system is about to collapse about them !

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

They send an invoice, they ask to identify the driver, you name yourself 'Fred Bloggs' as the driver, then that's it you have complied you are not hiding anything, now that has been sorted the only way forward is to take it to court, can you see them paying 600k x £30 to go in that way ? The whole small claims track will collapse, the ppc's will also collapse by paying to do this, also they would need to employ at least 2 or 3 people to lurk in every car park, the whole system is about to collapse about them !

Well let's hope so...however a few wins against R/K's and you know that PPCs will be using that in their threatening letters and implying that because they have won a couple that they will win them all..:-( as they do now with the Thomas case.

taffy056

If it goes to court they will have explain why their terms resemble a penalty, has the driver accepted the terms, are the terms unfair, there are a lot of things to appeal on , the RK thing is just a small issue when going to court, nobody defends just on that.

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

If it goes to court they will have explain why their terms resemble a penalty, has the driver accepted the terms, are the terms unfair, there are a lot of things to appeal on , the RK thing is just a small issue when going to court, nobody defends just on that.

Quite so, after all no one is suggesting that a R/K would deny being the driver in court if they actually were ...that would clearly be wrong ....a bit like all the lies the PPCs their DCAs and solicitors tell!!!

It occurs to me this is one reason why PPCs don't do court ..imagine having to admit in court that all the letters you and your agents sent to the R/K are full of lies ?? :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

So you have to say who was driving but not give any other details! Am I right that nothing in that law says you have to give anything other than the name of the driver, then you've done your bit as the registered keeper and absolutely cannot be pursued further!

So I declare that the person who was driving my car that day was, I think, John Smith. So, Hasbeen & co. now has to find out which John Smith it was...

Sirdan

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So you have to say who was driving but not give any other details! Am I right that nothing in that law says you have to give anything other than the name of the driver, then you've done your bit as the registered keeper and absolutely cannot be pursued further!

So I declare that the person who was driving my car that day was, I think, John Smith. So, Hasbeen & co. now has to find out which John Smith it was...

At present nothing in law requires you to name the driver in a PPC case BUT if they haul you into Small Claims as the R/K then the judge may well ask you for the details.
He/she could easily form the opinion that an R/K on probability would know the name and address of anyone they let drive their car..he could make life difficult indeed by asking your relationship with the alleged driver and on what basis they have access to your vehicle etc etc .

Points to remember in civil proceedings ..it's all on probabiilty..refusal to answer can lead to adverse inferences and unlike criminal cases you do not have the protection of the law regarding self incrimination.