Public consultation on Protection of Freedoms Bill

AlexisV

LOL I see another PPC name has appeared on there! Good work whoever that was!

backfoot

My MP has quickly responded to my letter regarding the Freedom Bill.

Essentially, I pointed out the dangers of increasing any powers to PPC's given the fact they are unregulated. I objected to the proposed RK liability and stated that that no changes were needed to established Contract Law.

He has fully agreed with these points and has already raised these concerns with the Minister responsible.

I am certain he grasps the issues and will definately be objecting to this part of the legislation. From previous personal dialogue, I know he approves of the abolition of clamping.

Sirdan

More drivel on the public consultation this time from "Mr Ajax"

Pay it or appeal is his motto ..appeal and ask the PPC to strike out it's own profit ..fat chance !!

He also quotes Section 143 RTA re the keeper knowing the driver at all times and knowing they are insured.

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The point is even if I did know the driver I don't have to TELL a PPC ...that is not against S143.

S143 requires you to KNOW that anyone you allow to use the vehicle is INSURED not to KNOW which of those persons is using it at any given time .

I know exactly who has access to my vehicle and I know they are all insured fully comp which allows them to drive ANY vehicle with the owners permission ..they have my standing permission ..that does not mean I KNOW who is driving it at any given time ..if it's on my drive and I am out ..and persons A,B and C all have access to the keys ..how could I possibly know ???

DOZY PPC muppet trying to use the RTA to scare R/K's . WHEN WILL THEY LEARN.
So Mr Ajax when I tell the court I don't know who was driving and give them a list of possible ,go ahead and report me to the Police for a Section 143..and they will tell you not to waste their time !!

esmerobbo

I think Mr Ajax has been posting on CAG very similar lines! Posting as da8iwr

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?244576-Newlyn-PLC-(bailiffs-)-NHS-Parking-Ticket/page2

peter_the_piper

""Which tells about the legal landmark case(thomas) from a private car fines company who won.""
I think you may be right. I'm waiting for the day when they use another case, it shows how many they win does it not?

Spartacus_Mills

Nice to see one of the PPC trolls on that consultation page posting as "Stephen Thomas" well known PPC "victory" that is constantly paraded by the PPC trolls.

Do they have no imagination ?

Sirdan

Bump !!:d ..

peter_the_piper

Reply rec'd today from them above to query e-mail.


Thank you for your e-mail of 12 February to Lynne Featherstone about the regulation of vehicle immobilisation. Your e-mail has been passed to the Home Office and I have been asked to reply.

The Government included a commitment in its Coalition Agreement to tackle rogue private sector wheel-clampers. In line with this commitment, on 11 February, the Government introduced the Protection of Freedoms Bill which includes provisions for a ban on the immobilisation and towing away of vehicles without lawful authority.

A new offence of immobilising, moving or restricting the movement of a vehicle without lawful authority will be created. In effect, this will ban most clamping and towing by anyone other than the police, local authorities and Government agencies acting in accordance with their statutory or other powers.

To be guilty of the offence, the person immobilising or moving the vehicle must intend to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by its driver or owner.

The penalty for the new offence will be a fine. This will be either an unlimited fine on conviction in the Crown Court (on indictment) or a fine of not more than the statutory minimum (currently £5,000) in a magistrates’ court (on summary conviction).

The new provisions include some exemptions. For example, they allow for the use of fixed barriers to control car parks to continue. They will not prevent the owner or driver of a vehicle clamping it themselves, for example to prevent theft. Also, clamping and towing with lawful authority will still be legal.

The provisions also extend the powers of the police so they can tow away vehicles parked on private land which are obstructively or dangerously parked. The new police powers relating to towing vehicles away are expected to be used only in exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the police: for example, where a vehicle is blocking a hospital entrance. The police will not be expected to take on the role of parking enforcers for private land.

We are aware of the parking industry’s concerns about securing payment of ticketed charges. Under our proposals, a parking firm which qualifies to apply to DVLA will be able to hold the keeper liable for payment of a parking related charge if the driver has failed to pay. This liability will apply only if a request for payment was made when the parking incident took place and has not been paid.

Once the new offence takes effect the Security Industry Authority’s licensing regime for vehicle immobilisers will become redundant. The relevant provisions under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 will be repealed at that point. Similarly, the provisions in the Crime and Security Act 2010 which provided for the licensing of wheel clamping businesses and an independent appeal system for motorists, which have not been brought into force, will also be repealed.

Subject to parliamentary approval, it is expected that the Bill will receive Royal Assent by the end of the current session (by Easter 2012). We will aim to bring the ban into force as soon as possible after the Bill has been passed. Once in place, anyone who clamps a vehicle or tows it away without lawful authority could face criminal proceedings.

Further information on the rest of the Bill’s contents can be found here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/legislation/protection-freedoms-bill/.

Yours sincerely,



Miss A Lean

peter_the_piper

My quick reply.

Thank you for the email. I note that a ppc will now hold the RK responsible for any charge.
Will 1) They be regulated as to a maximum charge.
2) As the charge would likely be against a breach of contract, how would a RK be responsible for someone else's contract assuming it was not the RK driving.
3) As most of the ppc's charges do not reflect their actual losses then they become a Penalty. As it has long been held that a contract cannot contain a penalty this would nullify a ppc's charges.
4) What tribunal system would be set up as appeals to a ppc are always(with the rare exception) regected.
I look forward to your reply.

trisontana

There still seems to be some confusion about the definition of "charge". Is it the amount you have to pay to park on the private car-park? Or is it the money demanded by the landowner/PPC if you break any of their rules?