Public consultation on Protection of Freedoms Bill

Sirdan

The public consultation website says this :-

"The normal parliamentary convention is that there should be at least two weekends between the initial publication of the Bill and the first proper debate in Parliament. As such, the deadline for your comments is 7th March 2011"

BUT

the UK Parliament website lists the Second Reading (i.e. when the debate starts) as being on 1st March 2011.

DOH !

Sirdan

Letter to MP done.

If you have a Labour MP worth geeing them up a bit by reminding them that only a Conservative Government would draft such appalling legislation.
Legislation which clearly supports the interests of the corrupt big businessmen to the detriment of the individual "man in the street" consumer.

Don't like to bring party politics into it but it is a sure fire way to get a labour MP interested ..consumer rights ..boring ..a chance to slag off the Cons ..now I 'm interested !!!
Sad but true.

ripped_off_driver

Found this interesting Home Office memo on the HRA implications of the Bill:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/legislation/freedom-bill/human-rights-memorandum?view=Binary

Although there is much in there that is objectionable and it takes a pro-PPC line, I was drawn to para 101 and 102.

Para 101 makes clear that the PPC has to go to court and prove a contract. But para 102 mentions the BPA adjudication pilot and says that the "keeper liability" scheme will not be introduced until this or a similar scheme goes national.

If this is the case then it is clear that the government has misgivings about the proposal. The BPA scheme can never be a fair and impartial body as the whole purpose of the BPA is to work on behalf of its member PPCs. The BPA cannot be trusted to implement and administer an independent scheme when it clearly has a conflict of interest and has been the leading cheerleader for moves to make these PPC invoices enforcable.

Any response should therefore also point out the unsuitability of letting the BPA, a hopelessly prejudiced and biased organisation in these matters, undertake any part of the safeguards around this regressive piece of legislation. If a national scheme is required before these provisions can be brought into effect then a truly independent and impartial national scheme should be implemented.

king100

Post by Sean

All of the comments are clearly those of the members of such sites as MSE etc. Who have posted this page on their website and telling its members to leave comments. The members of such sites have no life and sit around all day and night giving people advice which they know nothing about. This is a great step in the right direction for the parking industry. I do not work in the parking industry but I do suffer from bad drivers on my land who think its fine to park on my land for free.


I think hes a clamper in disguise

Sean make your land more secure then no one can park on it you fool!!!!!!!!!

Sirdan

king100 wrote: »

Post by Sean

All of the comments are clearly those of the members of such sites as MSE etc. Who have posted this page on their website and telling its members to leave comments. The members of such sites have no life and sit around all day and night giving people advice which they know nothing about. This is a great step in the right direction for the parking industry. I do not work in the parking industry but I do suffer from bad drivers on my land who think its fine to park on my land for free.


I think hes a clamper in disguise

Sean make your land more secure then no one can park on it you fool!!!!!!!!!

Well what a well constructed argument by Sean. The personal insults to members of this forum certainly add currency to his viewpoint.
I will be popping a cheque in the post to Graham White for £242 immediately (for two fake PCNs).
Suggest everyone here ignores this muppet and is not baited by him.
If he is not involved in PPC work I'm Santa bloody Claus !:rotfl:

Sirdan

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Found this interesting Home Office memo on the HRA implications of the Bill:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/legislation/freedom-bill/human-rights-memorandum?view=Binary


.

Interesting document, the focus being very much on keeper liability. It seems to me that the PPC industry has indeed been lobbying the government quite heavily.
The Government bless them seem to have fallen for the nonsense that keepers are hiding behind the "you don't know who was driving defence" and ONLY this defence.
They have failed to address the important points re the formation of the contract ..there is nothing in the Bill regulating singage etc
AND
they seem to support PPCs being able to charge penalties contrary to established consumer contract law .

All I can say is" good luck" to any PPC that hauls a keeper into the county court if this indeed becomes law - you're gonna need it !

If this is about protection of freedoms why aren't the Government doing something about the PPC bullying tactics where they threaten all sorts of actions and dire consequences which they never follow through on.

Is it right that a company can write to you one,two,three,four or more times using threatening legaslese and employing solicitors to mislead you and threaten court action when in fact they have no intention whatsoever of pursuing such action.? (mainly because the costs outweigh the inital charge and contrary to what they assert the losing side is not normally ordered to pay solicitors costs in a Small Claims case).

This is what the Government should be addressing -one letter ,the INVOICE. Followed by a reminder which makes it clear that court action is a MAYBE.
If a PPC sends anything which implies they WILL take you to court ..then they must do so or they ought to be liable to some sort of penalty for harrassment.
My final warning letter from Graham White ..says "the matter will be referred in seven days" -to someone less aware taken in the context of all the dire warnings that precede about costs and courts this implies that they WILL issue a claim in seven days if you don't pay !!
Totally unacceptable, the PPCs need to put up or shut up IMHO.

Come on PPCs if these are properly formed fair contracts and the charges are not penalties why don't you run some test cases..you can't lose ....can you ????:rotfl:
In fact why employ a solicitor at all just send a company rep with a brain (assuming you can find one) ..surely he/she will be able to state your case at least as well as the average joe public driver/keeper of a vehicle ?

fluffnutter

Poor old Sean's got his knickers in a twist hasn't he?! His rather personal attack of people on MSE ("The members of such sites have no life...") suggest he might be a little frustrated that his own efforts to extort money from people have been thwarted by people taking sound advice from "... people [who give] advice which they know nothing about". Bless him! He needs to get a gate for his land and stop worrying about it.

Sirdan

What I don't get is why the Government can't get a grip of these PPCs (maybe they don't want to).

Unless I'm missing something why can't they.

1) Compel PPCs to follow all the relevant regulations that Councils have to follow re wording of tickets,signage,timescales etc etc

2) Allow PATAS to rule on PPC appeals that rely on the regulations .

then if you lose at PATAS you either pay up or the PPC can issue a claim in Small Claims

3) At small claims you would not be allowed to rely on any of the regulatory points you used at PATAS and the Court should have no remit to support or overturn the PATAS ruling on those points BUT the court can accept defences based around contract law and rule on those .

There you go proper regulations,independent appeal on regulations and PPC tickets are still contractual not statutory ..seems too simple what have I missed ?

peter_the_piper

""2) Allow PATAS to rule on PPC appeals that rely on the regulations .

then if you lose at PATAS you either pay up or the PPC can issue a claim in Small Claims""
As long as the ppc can't also go to small claims court if THEY lose.

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

""2) Allow PATAS to rule on PPC appeals that rely on the regulations .

then if you lose at PATAS you either pay up or the PPC can issue a claim in Small Claims""
As long as the ppc can't also go to small claims court if THEY lose.

Obviously !!! Sorry I thought that was so obvious i didn't put it in ..as with Council tickets if you break the regs and lose at PATAS it's all over !