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

Altarf

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.

The proposed bill applies to "parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land", where "those charges have not been paid or have only been partly paid."

So the car park owner merely needs to have signs saying "50p for two hours, £50 for parking over two hours", or "free for two hours, £50 for parking over two hours", or "free parking for cars displaying a valid Blue Badge, £50 for everyone else", or "free parking for loading and unloading, £50 for everyone else", etc

Although the legislation goes on to say "It is immaterial for the purposes of this Schedule whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain parked) on the land", I think that a landowner who prohibited parking would risk falling into the 'loss or damages' trap. Far easier to say, "free parking for anyone displaying a company pass, £50 for everyone else".

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

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.

And if you don't pay, you don't think that there will be administration charges for chasing you (which will be detailed on the tariff of charges in the car park)? £25 per letter, £150 from a solicitor etc.

HO87

usignuolo wrote: »

"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.

You are of course absolutely correct although I'd not call it a loophole as such just a somewhat slower - and at present more laborious route - to getting at the same information. However, having used the V888 route myself one gets the distinct impression that the "reasonable cause" bar is a lot higher.

Whatever newspeak tripe that spills from the lips of DVLA aka Capita aka (in Private Eye at least) Crapita at just short of 80,000 vehicle checks per week by PPC's even if they had the staff there couldn't be anything more than the most cursory of checks. Without any staff at all there are zero and attempting to argue that there is the BPA is rather like suggesting we should trust implicitly the figures produced by a kleptomaniac employed to carry out stock-taking (or should that be stock taking?). There are, therefore, no real safeguards for our personal data.

This is the issue that DVLA - and Parliament (that's where the "Secretary of State" parks his ar*e) need to be challenged on not the ATA nonsense (which is being used as a smokescreen) because when read in its entirety it can be seen to sport all the rigour of a damp ice cream wafer or, as others might suggest, the odd invertebrate civil servant.

Coupon-mad

Altarf wrote: »

And if you don't pay, you don't think that there will be administration charges for chasing you (which will be detailed on the tariff of charges in the car park)? £25 per letter, £150 from a solicitor etc.

The Bank charges fiasco taught us that admin fees have to be a fair reflection of the cost of that administration, I believe? £25 per letter is far too much and £150 for a facsimile-signed, computer-generated letter bearing the heading of a solicitor firm is also much less than £25 to send. It's an unfair contract condition otherwise I think.

TBH I am not worried about this Freedoms Bill now I have time to reflect - there's no way the part about letting a private firm have more power than the Council in imposing whatever parking restrictions they want, charge what they want then pursue someone who wasn't even there will be passed. I hope.

Whoever draughted that is surely MAD. The BPA have 'got at' them in the initial stages but it cannot possibly last through to the actual passing of the law.

Oopsadaisy

patman99 wrote: »

So, if I were to register my car to a non-existent relative then the PPCs would not be able to ever get me.

Correct but your car insurance would most likely be invalid.

Oopsadaisy

From the notes of the meeting.......

Motorists pay 40% of tickets issued on private land.

HO87

Coupon-mad wrote: »

TBH I am not worried about this Freedoms Bill now I have time to reflect - there's no way the part about letting a private firm have more power than the Council in imposing whatever parking restrictions they want, charge what they want then pursue someone who wasn't even there will be passed. I hope.

Agreed but I have concerns that elements are intended as stalking horses for the things they actually want - like the power to require that the RK divulge details of the driver a la s.172.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Whoever draughted that is surely MAD. The BPA have 'got at' them in the initial stages but it cannot possibly last through to the actual passing of the law.

Correct. I've previously suggested that if this was to be held up as a good example of the legal draughtsman's art then he should go back to the crayon and we should pray that common sense prevails for if this is enacted then the Country is truly destined for the cr*pper. I'm for the Argentine.

AlexisV

The Freedoms Bill states the Registered Keeper is liable for any alleged charge as agreed under "a relevant contract". Contract law has not been changed overnight and the charges issued by private companies remain unenforceable in the vast majority of cases ie. they still amount to a contractual penalty and are not a reflection of actual loss incurred.

All the new legislation will do is enable parking companies to proclaim "You are liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2011" at the head of their threatening letters. Many Registered Keepers will be duped into paying a charge they are usually under no obligation to pay.

tbourner

I'm confused by all this, as I'm sure many of us are. Is it basically a difference between a fine and a charge? These are charges they make up, and they don't relate to the loss incurred by the company, whereas a fine is a legal thing which has to be paid?
If so, I still don't know how this new bill is changing the way charges are given - as above the contract law hasn't changed so the fact the RK is now liable for the unenforceable charge is irrelevant?

trisontana

AlexisV wrote: »

All the new legislation will do is enable parking companies to proclaim "You are liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2011" at the head of their threatening letters. Many Registered Keepers will be duped into paying a charge they are usually under no obligation to pay.

Hence my idea of a completely independent regulator which (amongst its other tasks) would ensure that any wording on documents would not threaten or mislead the motorist.

AlexisV

The danger then is that the charges become legit. The status quo remains - if people are clever enough to use Google they will realise the invoices are still to be ignored. Once word gets out that legal wording is irrelevant, the PPCs will have taken one step forward and two steps back.