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

roddydogs

Just Proves "Be careful what you wish for"

esmerobbo

Could explain this?

http://www.parkingforum.co.uk/adjudication_pilot

Sir_Roger_deLodger

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.

So. if the notice says £10,000, thats what the RK owes them! Only the British Government could ban one form of extortion and at the same time introduce a new one thats even worse!

ripped_off_driver

The explanatory Notes say this:

"Clause 56: Recovery of unpaid parking charges

203. Clause 56 gives effect to Schedule 4 which makes provision in certain circumstances, for the recovery of unpaid parking related charges incurred under a contract from the keeper of a vehicle.

Schedule 4: Recovery of unpaid parking charges

204. Paragraph 1 introduces the scheme as provided for in Schedule 4. The scheme provides that, subject to certain conditions being met, the keeper of a vehicle may be made liable for an unpaid parking charge that has been incurred by the driver of the vehicle having entered into a contract with a landowner and/or his or her agent in relation to parking the vehicle on the landowner’s land. The scheme is based on the legal analysis that a driver of a vehicle by parking on private land impliedly accepts the landowner’s offer to park (or that of a parking company acting as the landowner’s agent), or prohibition on parking and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions (including any parking charges and the associated enforcement mechanism for those charges) advertised on a notice board at the entrance to and within the land. If the terms and conditions are not adhered to by the driver then the vehicle can be "ticketed" for charges due under the terms of the contract.

205. Under the current law, a parking provider (termed "the creditor" in this Schedule) wishing to enforce charges against a driver is able to obtain details of the vehicle keeper from the DVLA if they are able to show "reasonable cause" for wanting the information (so as to satisfy regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2742)). A responsible landowner (or his or her agent) providing parking in accordance with industry best practice has reasonable cause to seek from the DVLA the keeper details of a vehicle in respect of parking related charges that have not been paid. The DVLA requires landowners or their agents requesting keeper details for parking enforcement purposes to be members of an accredited trade association (the British Parking Association is the only trade association currently so accredited). Whilst the landowner (or his or her agent) may seek to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper, as the law is currently understood to stand, any parking contract will be between the driver of a vehicle and the parking provider and accordingly the keeper may not be liable for the charges incurred if he or she was not the driver.

206. Paragraphs 2 and 3 define various terms used in the Schedule. The scheme applies only to vehicles parked on "relevant land", the definition of which excludes a highway maintainable at public expense and a parking place provided or controlled by a traffic authority. Other land where parking is governed by a statutory scheme including that contained in Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (which includes provision for keeper liability) is also excluded from the scheme as set out in this Schedule.

207. Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to seek to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5 to 7 are satisfied. The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(8)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, that the theft was properly reported and the vehicle had not been recovered before the parking commenced (paragraphs 4(3) to (6)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(7)).

208. Paragraph 5 sets out the first condition which is that the creditor must have the right to enforce a parking contract against the driver of a vehicle but be unable to do so because the creditor does not know the name and current address of the driver.

209. Paragraph 6 sets out the second condition which is that a notice to the driver in respect of the parking charges must either have been given to the person in charge of the vehicle or affixed to the vehicle whilst it was still located on the land and that at least 28 days must have elapsed since that event (this is to allow time for the driver of the vehicle to pay the sums due under the notice). Paragraph 6(2) lists the matters that must be set out in the notice, including the total amount of the parking charges payable. In the event that the notice is not settled by the driver, the creditor may not pursue the keeper of the vehicle for more than the sum specified in the enforcement notice.

210. Paragraph 7 sets out the third condition (which applies only to registered vehicles) which is that the creditor has applied to the Secretary of State (in practice, the DVLA) for the name and address of the keeper, that information has been provided and the creditor then makes a claim against the keeper within 60 days of the keeper details being obtained.

211. Paragraph 8 provides that the scheme applies to Crown vehicles that are required to be registered with the DVLA and to the keeper of such vehicles. The scheme does not, however, apply to vehicles used for military purposes or that belong to visiting forces.

212. Paragraph 9 confers a power on the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers to amend certain provisions in Schedule 4 by order (subject to the affirmative resolution procedure); the relevant provisions are the exceptions to the definition of "relevant land" in paragraph 3(1), the definition of a "traffic authority" in paragraph 3(2); the exceptions to the right to claim unpaid parking charges in paragraph 4; and any of the conditions in paragraphs 5 to 7."

It is like a wish list from the BPA. No independent appeal. No rules on signage or lines/markings. No maximum charge.

Everyone applauds the clamping ban but this will see one scam replaced by another. The BPA have run rings around the government on this but it is not yet law so there is time to lobby.

esmerobbo

If you read para 205 it states!

Whilst the landowner (or his or her
agent) may seek to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper, as the law
is currently understood to stand, any parking contract will be between the driver of a
vehicle and the parking provider and accordingly the keeper may not be liable for the
charges incurred if he or she was not the driver.

peter_the_piper

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

So. if the notice says £10,000, thats what the RK owes them! Only the British Government could ban one form of extortion and at the same time introduce a new one thats even worse!

I think its called the Law of unintended Consequences.

SodG24

esmerobbo wrote: »

If you read para 205 it states!

Whilst the landowner (or his or her
agent) may seek to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper, as the law
is currently understood to stand, any parking contract will be between the driver of a
vehicle and the parking provider and accordingly the keeper may not be liable for the
charges incurred if he or she was not the driver.

I'm no legal eagle but doesn't that say in effect that only the driver is liable ?

Sir_Roger_deLodger

esmerobbo wrote: »

If you read para 205 it states!

Whilst the landowner (or his or her
agent) may seek to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper, as the law
is currently understood to stand, any parking contract will be between the driver of a
vehicle and the parking provider and accordingly the keeper may not be liable for the
charges incurred if he or she was not the driver.

I thought that was just stating the current position, not the proposed one. Hope I'm wrong.

pogofish

trisontana wrote: »

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

This probably explains why the BPA have been encouraging to cyclists and alternative transport rights groups in the attempt to have some sort of "value" defined for private/workplace parking.

Hadeon

esmerobbo wrote: »

If you read para 205 it states!

Whilst the landowner (or his or her
agent) may seek to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper, as the law
is currently understood to stand, any parking contract will be between the driver of a
vehicle and the parking provider and accordingly the keeper may not be liable for the
charges incurred if he or she was not the driver.

SodG24 wrote: »

I'm not legal eagle but don't that say in effect that only the driver is liable ?

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

I thought that was just stating the current position, not the proposed one. Hope I'm wrong.

That's the way I read it too Sir Rodger, ...this is not looking good at all.
These are chaotic proposals which will result in ......well, utter chaos if passed into law.