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

KingFelix

Sirdan wrote: »

Well I'm sorry but I think your mate (copper or not) is talking b*****ks.

DVLA are more than happy to take the money and run IMO.

The DVLA should see what's happening and take a stand like the rest of us IMO!!!

leoetal19

Sirdan wrote: »

Only just been introduced to Parliament as Bill..it isn't law until it becomes an Act after debate and amendments by both the Commons and the Lords.
Could take several months.
(If you want to know more about how a Bill becomes an Act visit the UK parliament website)

Also they will not be able to apply it retrospectively.

pheew thanks sirdan, i have 3 sat waiting and poss more to come but if it cant be applied retropectivley at least i can relax and ignore...but will contact my MP too try to stopthese people profitting anymore !

daveyjp

Does the bill allow PPCs to levy 'fines'.

If not then there is no issue with any of this. Continue to ignore and when taken to Court they can only seek damages amounting to their loss. Nil in a free car park or the cost of parking.

Sirdan

leoetal19 wrote: »

pheew thanks sirdan, i have 3 sat waiting and poss more to come but if it cant be applied retropectivley at least i can relax and ignore...but will contact my MP too try to stopthese people profitting anymore !

That is my considered opinion only ..and I'm not legally qualified.

I don't see how you can make someone retrospectively liable ..for a contract to be fair and proper any person who is affected by the terms has to be aware of any consequences of a breach ...how can an R/K be so liable when the event happened before any legislation re R/K liability was enacted ??
May have to be tested in a court but I can only see one outcome.

You may as well write a law saying that as of now ( and retospectively) driving red cars incurs a charge of £100 a year and send a demand to the keepers of all red cars !!!
Those keepers will be able to argue (and win I reckon) that had they known they would not have bought a red car !!

Effectively you would be charging someone for not being able to see in to the future machinations of parliamentarians ...never gonna happen IMO.

Sirdan

daveyjp wrote: »

Does the bill allow PPCs to levy 'fines'.

If not then there is no issue with any of this. Continue to ignore and when taken to Court they can only seek damages amounting to their loss. Nil in a free car park or the cost of parking.

Surely if the charge for the "service" of parking more than the specified maximum time e.g .2 hours is clearly posted as £60 ..then they will argue it is a charge as a consequence of the T & C's of the contract, which they allege you agreed to, not a penalty at all.

Not saying they can win that but they will deffo try it on at some point ..when the R/K is liable in law !! :-(

Kite2010

Sirdan wrote: »

Surely if the charge for the "service" of parking more than the specified maximum time e.g .2 hours is clearly posted as £60 ..then they will argue it is a charge as a consequence of the T & C's of the contract, which they allege you agreed to, not a penalty at all.

Not saying they can win that but they will deffo try it on at some point ..when the R/K is liable in law !! :-(

I know one barrier-controlled car-park which does that, £5 for 2 hours parking (£5 refunded in the shop when you spend £5), over 2 hours the fee jumps to £25 which you have to pay in order to get out the car-park :eek: (Waitrose, Romsey), although this charge is signposted around the car-park and on entry to the road leading to the car-park barriers.

peter_the_piper

KingFelix wrote: »

The DVLA should see what's happening and take a stand like the rest of us IMO!!!

Unfortunately they are just a business, not a very caring or efficient business.

Sirdan

Re retrospective claims , there is a clause in the current Bill that limits this avenue .

In Schedule 4 :-

Para 7 c

"
the day on which a claim for payment by the registered keeper of the

unpaid parking charges is first made by virtue of the right conferred

by paragraph 4 is within the period of 60 days beginning with the

day on which that information was provided by the Secretary of

State."

This is a condition for the PPC to claim from the keeper if they don't have the driver details ..for Secretary of State read DVLA ..so if you have already had a letter addressed to the keeper which tells you they got your name address etc from the DVLA and it was more than sixty days ago ..then it's game over on claims against the keeper even if this was law tomorrow.

HO87

KingFelix wrote: »

But wouldn't the PPC who request the data risk losing their link if the other PPC did something silly? My mate who's a copper says that the DVLA hate all of these PPC's cowb**s and look for any excuse to cut them off.

This may be so but there is absolutely no evidence that the DVLA have "cut off" more than a handful over the years. Bear in mind that on the one hand the DVLA demand - as part of the ATA agreement - that PPC's with the "electronic link" submit themselves to checks and audits but on the other admit that they have no staff to police it making the requirement (included to allay public fears) somewhat less than toothless. The reality is that the BPA are left to police matters and as they are a trade association with an agenda (to maintain their position and the agreement) there is no obvious incentive for them to do so with any determination.

usignuolo

"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). "

As I understand it, this requirement (BPA membership) is only enforced when electronic access to the DVLA drivers database is requested. If you make a request in writing and pay the relevant fee, so long as you can claim "reasonable cause", there is no requirement to be a member of the BPA. Many dodgy PPCs are using this loophole, which the government appears to be unaware of. The DVLA is well aware of it, but in its public pronouncements only trumpets the BPA requirement for electronic claims.

I don't know how much the DVLA raises in written requests for driver details annually from PPCs but would wager it's a tidy sum.