Clamping ban bill very bad indeed: keeper responsibility for PPC invoices

ripped_off_driver

The bill has just been published. It is as bad as it gets, conferring RK liability for PPC invoices, overturning hundreds of years of contract law.

No wonder the BPA did not seriously oppose the ban. They must be rubbing their hands in glee.

Serious lobbying needs to happen on this nonsensical proposal.

Draft provisions here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/146/11146.37-41.html#j800pge

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/146/11146.101-107.html#j800s

CyCo_2

Surely this only means it's the RK who needs to ignore the invoice and all the follow up letters, instead of whoever was driving?

trisontana

And the only money they can claim is for actual material loss suffered.

ripped_off_driver

Yes but it removes a major defence, "you cannot prove who was driving"/"I was not driving", which has stopped PPCs chancing their arm in court. Also it does inevitably "legitimise" PPC invices to some extent. Major pressure needs to be brought to bear to get this out of the bill. I will be getting on to Lynne Featherstone about it.

esmerobbo

However it does seem to legitimise "contract" if by sticking a sign up and that's a contract, it will be worse then clamping!

Spartacus_Mills

This is extremely bad news and rather disappointing.

It will allow the crooks and sharks to legally extort money from people. Or at least make it easier.

Banning clamping is a step forward.

RK liability is something the PPC scum, sorry MSE, people have been asking for and it looks like this craven, supine govt have rolled over.

They are allowing a private organisation to hold an individual responsible for someone else's actions.

If I am reading it right is it also RK liability if the named driver refuses to pay ?

Spartacus_Mills

esmerobbo wrote: »

However it does seem to legitimise "contract" if by sticking a sign up and that's a contract, it will be worse then clamping!

There are already laws to determine how a contract is formed.

I do not see that as the issue really.

tbourner

I guess the first few people to refuse and take it to court will be the precedent setters.

esmerobbo

Does this section mean the end of CCTV seeing you go in and out?

(3)

A notice to the driver must be given before the vehicle is removed from the

land in question (and while it is stationary) by affixing it to the vehicle or by

handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

I was afraid that something like this would happen. Is there anything in the Bill that mentions a maximum charge and an independent appeals process? [ie not the BPA]. If not then we will see PPCs legally demanding thousands of pounds from the RK for one wheel a couple of millimetres over a line, or an "overstay" of 30 seconds.
Time to get lobbying.

Orford

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

Is there anything in the Bill that mentions a maximum charge and an independent appeals process? [ie not the BPA]. If not then we will see PPCs legally demanding thousands of pounds from the RK for one wheel a couple of millimetres over a line, or an "overstay" of 30 seconds.
Time to get lobbying.

Not that I can see:

(7)

The maximum sum which may be claimed from the keeper by virtue of the

right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to the

driver under paragraph 6(2)(d), less any payments towards the unpaid

parking charges which are received after the notice is given.

and no mention of any appeal process

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/146/11146.101-107.html#j800s