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

Sirdan

pgl0897 wrote: »

let's get Featherstone's email addy up then. Get her offices inbox filled with incredulous outrage :T

Agreed but let's not panic.

The liability issue -driver not known R/K liable ..in line with statutory. tickets I believe.

But what is the R/K liable for ? Any amount a PPC chooses to put on it's sign ..there's no way a court is going to uphold that ..£1000 for overstaying 5 mins ..I don't think so ..fortunately Judges are perfectly capable of making the right decisons and showing the muppets in parliament up for what they are ..it is happening more and more .

Let's hope that the legislation never gets thru in this form ..but even if it does can you really see a judge ordering anyone to pay £250,000 for overstaying because a notice says so and if you don't pay the baliff will be round to seize your house ..not EVER happening.

What will happen is the PPC morons( who can't get the basics of forming a proper fair contract right as it is) will go extortion crazy taking R/K's to court for ridiculous amounts on minor infringements and prove once and for all in the public domain of the courts what a bunch of fraudulent chancers they really are ..

anewman

bargepole wrote: »

It's not too surprising that these laws are being proposed, given the power of the landowners and parking companies' lobbying.

I suspect there are next to no land owners lobbying, just those who make the money from the end result. I.e. BPA and their members. Goes to show how widespread and lucrative scamming the public is that the funds enable them to lobby Government and get what they want enshrined in a proposed law.

esmerobbo

pgl0897 wrote: »

let's get Featherstone's email addy up then. Get her offices inbox filled with incredulous outrage :T

More importantly your own MP. http://www.writetothem.com/ if you don't know their own email addy!

ripped_off_driver

Some nore background to this. Here are the minutes of the "Parking Forum" in November, an apparent figleaf set up by the BPA presumably to show that it is consulting all sides:

http://www.parkingforum.co.uk/sites/default/files/pictures/sites/default/files/pictures/Parking%20Forum%20Meeting%20Notes%20-%20051110%20%20final.pdf

Note item 2.

Sadly so called motorists representatives were present. For example Neil Herron, who to give him some credit at least asked if a legal opinion should be produced but did not appear to object to the concept. The AA did not show up and I don't know if the RAC were there.

With supporters like this who needs enemies.

Also note that it is the Tory [very rude word] Philip Hammond who is behind this and not Lynne Featherstone.

The bill does not work in any event. There are unintended consequences both ways. For example ANPR operators cannot use it, requiring PPCs to have staff to patrol, a huge cost. Also it may well be unlawful as breaching the long established privity of contract doctrine. One case would see it off. Another downside for PPCs is that they cannot claim any more than is on the sign (although I accept there is no maximum on this). This means they cannot keep ratcheting up the charges.

I am sure there are other loopholes and problems and in the end this will need radical revision.

HO87

The issue is and has been that the BPA's case sounds entirely reasonable, indeed practical, but the whole purpose of their lobbying is simply to legitimise parking "farming". There is no real landowners lobby - indeed that is the one voice that has been completely absent - and strangely the only version we hear is via their parking contractors. Sadly, Neil Herron and others - including the ultimately inimical RAC - have bought into the idea and thereby given credence to the BPA cooked-up idea lying behind this dreadfully constructed Bill.

Privity is going to be the issue insofar as the intention to pass responsibility for payment to the RK is concerned and I think a useful argument could be constructed to show that by passing the charge onto the RK in the way proposed that it would thereby become a "penalty". Given that the putative "parking charge" appears to be being acknowledged as a contractual debt one wonders what legal justification there can be for - without evidence - passing it to a third party who could may never have been party to the contract? However, I see this particular aspect of the mishmash as being a stalking horse for what the BPA and their cohorts actually want - a statutory power to demand the identity of the driver and we should therefore be extremely careful in the way in which we approach this. It would not be the first time that private companies had been handed statutory authority. One only has to look at the Utilities and Railway companies if one wants examples and so this would hardly be a precedent-setter.

I think the strongest argument against the whole section of the Bill is that there is no framework, no safeguards, no supervision and no regulation and to hand any form of authority to an organisation such as the BPA - which is, after all, simply an old-fashioned trade protection society - would set a precedent. Parliament also need to understand that outside of the more reputable parking companies there are a whole raft of others that exist at the margin peopled by the refugees from failed or revoked SIA clamping and doormen licences and those who are choosing to jump ship early from the doomed SS Clamper who view it as an even easier method of making a good living. The whole approach of PPC's verges on fraud, their tickets, letters and their debt-collectors and solicitors letters are solely designed to fleece the ignorant. The Augean Stables that are the PPC margins have yet to be cleaned out and, at present, there is no one with the ability, inclination or will to do so. Legislation is not going to have any effect unless and until the Stables are thoroughly cleansed.

Thankfully it is just a draft but were it to be held up as a demonstration of the skills of the legal draughtsman then methinks he should go back to using a crayon.

KingFelix

Is it not true that the DVLA will not release keeper details to anyone that is not an AOS member, and to become an AOS member a PPC has to adhere to their terms and conditions that state that no PCN can be above £150? Why would any PPC risk losing their DVLA link by charging someone more than £150 [this is in response to the point raised about PPC's taking people to court trying to claim £10,000 as part of a contract with the RK].

Kite2010

KingFelix wrote: »

Is it not true that the DVLA will not release keeper details to anyone that is not an AOS member, and to become an AOS member a PPC has to adhere to their terms and conditions that state that no PCN can be above £150? Why would any PPC risk losing their DVLA link by charging someone more than £150 [this is in response to the point raised about PPC's taking people to court trying to claim £10,000 as part of a contract with the RK].

The DVLA would sell your details to anybody after paying £2.50 fee.

I wonder how many claims they actually turn-down?

Sirdan

KingFelix wrote: »

Is it not true that the DVLA will not release keeper details to anyone that is not an AOS member, and to become an AOS member a PPC has to adhere to their terms and conditions that state that no PCN can be above £150? Why would any PPC risk losing their DVLA link by charging someone more than £150 [this is in response to the point raised about PPC's taking people to court trying to claim £10,000 as part of a contract with the RK].

1) The DVLA will release to non AOS companies if they make a written request.

2) Even if a PPC charges over £150 they are only breaking the totally unenforced BPA codes of practice.
The BPA will NOT expel them , in fact they will actually do nothing at all as they are not a regulatory body.
(I have this in writing from the BPA).
I sent them photographic evidence of a breach of the codes but they sent me a standard "we can't actually enforce anything " reply" and 1 month on the PPC has not amended the offending signage in any way whatsoever.

KingFelix

Sirdan wrote: »

1) The DVLA will release to non AOS companies if they make a written request.

2) Even if a PPC charges over £150 they are only breaking the totally unenforced BPA codes of practice.
The BPA will NOT expel them , in fact they will actually do nothing at all as they are not a regulatory body.
(I have this in writing from the BPA).
I sent them photographic evidence of a breach of the codes but they sent me a standard "we can't actually enforce anything " reply" and 1 month on the PPC has not amended the offending signage in any way whatsoever.

thanks for the info. I'm no expert on all of this, although I have followed this site for ages.

I have heard it's very difficult and time consuming to get details from the dvla in paper form - how many PPC who are non AOS actually submit in writing for details?

I have heard that all PPC have to get their data from a DVLA computer link and that if they lose their membership, their scam would basically fall apart. That's why I'm worried because if they can all get £150 their is basically no incentive to take people to court for £1000, as they would risk upsetting the government who may then stop their scam!!!
urghh.

anewman

KingFelix wrote: »

I have heard that all PPC have to get their data from a DVLA computer link and that if they lose their membership, their scam would basically fall apart. That's why I'm worried because if they can all get £150 their is basically no incentive to take people to court for £1000, as they would risk upsetting the government who may then stop their scam!!!
urghh.

Some PPC's actually pay a PPC who does have access to the DVLA database to get the details for them, is it called Ranger Services or something?!