Public consultation on Protection of Freedoms Bill

peter_the_piper

You know how sneaky them darn PPC's are, they hate to let go, I would not put it past the legislators to forget such a Minor point.

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

You know how sneaky them darn PPC's are, they hate to let go, I would not put it past the legislators to forget such a Minor point.

I've posted the duly amended version on the public consultation website (pending moderation).

Maybe just maybe someone will actually listen to common sense ..but don't hold your breath.

PATAS yes BPA ..you gotta be kidding right ?

peter_the_piper

If you post there's always a chance someone might look. If you don't post then there no chance.

Spartacus_Mills

HO87 wrote: »

Wait for the deluge of Pro-PPC posts appearing tomorrow once the usual trolls pick up on the issue.

Funny you should say that. When someone says " I do not work in the parking industry" when posting in that industries favour you know they are lying, and rather ineptly too.




<LI id=li-comment-292 class="comment odd alt thread-even depth-1">
Sean says:
February 18, 2011 at 11:33 am

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.

Spartacus_Mills

Sirdan wrote: »

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

The DVLA rakes in millions from it. Why would they bother. The govt want to do something to get rid of the cowboy clampers, a votewinner, keep the money rolling in to the DVLA and to not antagonise too many voters which is the fine line they are currently trying to tread and not doing too well.

HO87

Sirdan wrote: »

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 ?

I think the point you may have missed is that any form of statutory regulation will confer such a degree of legitimacy upon PPC World the situation will never be recovered should it all go pear-shaped. Besides, PPC World hardly deserve it; it is exactly what they're after and in whatever form will give them a crucial foot-in-the-door for further extension of their powers.

Secondly, the government's proposed actions in outlawing clamping and, in effect, legalising (or at least legitimising) PPC World is thoroughly contradictory. Is the close - even intimate - link between the two worlds not known or understood? If clamping is banned then all that will happen is that refugee licensed clampers will simply morph into unlicensed parking consultants the following day. Indeed some are already in the process This is a complete nonsense.

The government would be being far more protecting of the public if they acted against the apparent known malpractices of some of the companies involved. The problem is that the business model is so common they may have the hands full. The fact that taking this action will undoubtedly be difficult should not be accepted as any form of excuse for them to avoid doing so.

The truth of the situation, in my opinion, is that the BPA do no necessarily just want regulation (although that will help) one of the other main objectives is actually to prop up the existing business model - as well as giving them (and the membership) a really squeaky-clean image.

I think the advice to the government should be along the lines. "Tell them to put up or shut up". In other words, if the BPA is so keen on statutory support they should be told to help clean their own house up first.

Sirdan

Point taken.

I agree that on balance you may well be right.

As with statutory tickets only a minority will go to appeal at PATAS.

However even if you don't appeal to PATAS you still have the option to ignore and force them into the small claims court as you can now.

So on that basis my suggestions should be an improvement in that there is regulation and independent appeals and the tickets if they get as far as small claims could be deemed unenforceable under contract law for all the reasons already discussed.

As long as the regulations have a proviso that the PPC MUST make clear in all communications that they have no statutory powers and that their ticket is an INVOICE subject to contract law ...then this could go some way to solving some of the problems that exist now.

Sirdan

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

The DVLA rakes in millions from it. Why would they bother. The govt want to do something to get rid of the cowboy clampers, a votewinner, keep the money rolling in to the DVLA and to not antagonise too many voters which is the fine line they are currently trying to tread and not doing too well.

Nothing I have proposed has any bearing on the industry being allowed access to keeper details or any charges the DVLA may make for the supply of the data , so I don't quite get your point ?

Sirdan

My letter to MP , feel free to use any of it ..or indeed improve on it , a small amount of the text is redacted to protect my privacy .

"
Dear Sir,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the draft version of Schedule 4 (Unpaid Parking Charges) to The Protection of Freedoms Bill.

This schedule seeks to legitimise the Private parking industries penchant for issuing ludicrously high charges for minor transgressions.
These companies have a well earned reputation for playing fast and loose with the law and attempting to con individuals into paying disproportionately high charges.

In para 2 of the schedule a "parking charge" is defined as " a fee or charge (however described)" .

This throws the door wide open for Private parking companies (PPC) to describe their fees as "Penalty charges" this implies falsely that they have a statutory authority to collect payment of the charges.

Does Parliament really intend that private companies be allowed to mislead the public in such a way ?

Para 4 states re claims "the maximum sum is the amount specified in the notice to the driver" . Whilst this has a positive effect in that it prevents PPCs from adding arbitrarily to the charges after the event it does nothing to prevent the fact that some PPCs consider it reasonable to charge £100 for minor parking contraventions.

This lack of proportionality needs to be addressed , a standard SP10 speeding fixed penalty notice is currently £60 . We are rightly reminded by Government sponsored campaigns that "speed kills" .
So £60 pounds for a statutory offence that kills and £100 for a minor breach of a parking contract ..I have yet to see the evidence that poor parking kills anyone !

Futhermore it is quite clear that the sums being claimed are clearly penalties not fees.(Penalties are not permitted in consumer contracts)

I refer you to the following extracts from the OFT guidance on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999 which says :-

"It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law"

AND

"The Regulations are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism. If a term has the effect of an unfair penalty, it will be regarded as such, and not as a 'core term'. Therefore a penalty cannot be made fair by transforming it into a provision requiring payment of a fee for exercising a contractual option."

Is it Parliaments intent to overturn well established contract law and to in fact allow Penalties in consumer contracts ?

This would in fact undermine a fundamental principal of English law in that no private individual (including a private company) shall punish another private individual ..punishments are a matter for the state not individuals.


We now move to what is arguably the most contentious provision in the Schedule " The creditor has the right to claim payment of any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle."


How can Schedule 4 seek to make the keeper of a vehicle liable for a charge incurred by another driver.?

The contract for parking exists between the landowner (or their agent the PPC) and the driver.

In attempting to make a third party liable (i.e. the keeper ) the proposed legislation once again seeks to undermine a long held doctrine of contract law ..the doctrine of privity which in it's simplest terms states that " a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it."

By extension should such a claim reach the County Court ..how is the keeper to defend it ? The keeper is unaware of the terms of the contract,he is unaware whether or not any breach actually occurred. This is some what akin to" guilty till proven innocent" of an offence which someone else committed !!

Is this really Parliaments intent ?

By extension it could be held that in making the keeper liable when they are not established as the driver Parliament is placing a presumptive burden on the court to find on balance of probability that the keeper was indeed the driver despite there being no evidence adduced to support this. It then falls to the keeper to defend this position. This clearly shifts the burden of proof to the respondent as opposed to the claimant.
Is this also Parliaments intent ..that a claim is proven unless it is disproven ..again we can draw a comparison with the term "guilty till proven innocent".


Sadly despite the private parking industries appalling record there are no provisions for independent oversight and appeals in this legislation..in it's current form the legislation gives a clear green light to PPCs to continue with their dubious speculative invoicing practices.

Some examples of PPC behaviours that are not uncommon :-

Using the term Penalty Charge ..clearly with the intent of falsely implying authority (see attached photo taken at ************* ) .

(For info I complained to the British parking Association re this sign which is a flagrant breach of their codes of practice ..I have it in writing that they are not a regulatory body and can in fact do nothing ..the sign remains several weeks after my complaint.)

Falsely implying that at this time keepers are liable for charges when they are not. (I have a letter stating such)

Falsely implying that a Debt Collection Agency will send balliffs when they can not only a Court can .

and the most outrageous in my opinion a letter from a Solicitor implying that the keeper in required to divulge the identity of the driver by virtue of Civil Procedure Rule 31.16 when Rule 31 does NOT apply to the Small Claims Track ..surely any Solicitor involved in these claims knows this ...I consider such action to be ta best a deception and at worst criminal fraud.

As you can see PPCs seek to maximise their profits by all manner of dubious means and this legislation has not addressed this in any way whatsoever.

Finally if there were ever need for proof that this Government is a Conservative Government not a coaltion it is Schedule 4.
A Schedule which overturns long established contract law to the benefit of the supplier companies and to the detriment of the consumer
. A Schedule which effectively removes any fair prospect of defending a claim and reverses the burden of proof !
A Schedule with no regulation of an industry which is rotten to the core and is geared to profit even if it means they have to get Solicitors to mislead people by quoting irrelevant laws.!
Only a Conservative Government could possibly draft such legislation that protects the business over and above the individual voter.

It is ironic indeed that such a Schedule should appear in a bill entitled "Protection of Freedoms" . The only freedom this Schedule protects is the freedom of PPCs to continue to profit from their dubious practices.

I hope you will find time amongst your no doubt busy schedule to address the concerns I have raised .

Thank you

*****************

esmerobbo

Lets hope they read these letters I sent a similar one only shorter, hoping short and sweet would work to mine. With a list of threats the PPC's and the DCA use! Like our old friend a "Norwich Pharmacal Order"!

Sirdan if you haven't sent it yet an SP10 is speeding in a "Goods vehicle";)