Keeper liability: have your say

ripped_off_driver

If you object to the proposal to make the registered keeper liable for actions of the driver, please write to the Public Bill Committee which is scrutinising it:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/february/second-reading-of-protection-of-freedoms-bill/

It would be a pity to let this travesty of a provision go through without a proper fight and this will likely be the last chance to get it stopped.

Clearly any examples of lying and cheating by PPCs should be documented to demonstrate that these chancers and scammers are incapable of fairly administering such a mechanism.

Here is the information about submitting evidence:

How should written evidence be submitted?

Your submission should be emailed to scrutiny@parliament.uk

Please note that submissions sent to the Government department in charge of the Bill will not be treated as evidence to the Public Bill Committee.

Submissions should be in the form of a Word document. A summary should be provided. Paragraphs should be numbered, but there should be no page numbering. Essential statistics or further details can be added as annexes, which should also be numbered.

To make publication easier, please avoid the use of coloured graphs, complex diagrams or pictures. As a guideline, submissions should not exceed 3,000 words.

You should also include a separate covering email containing the name, address, telephone number and email address of the person responsible for the submission. The submission should be dated.

What will happen to my evidence?

The written evidence will be circulated to all Committee Members to inform their consideration of the Bill. Most submissions will also be published. They will be posted on the internet as soon as possible after the Committee has started sitting, and will also be printed in hard copy at the end of the Committee’s deliberations.

AlexisV

Sweet.

Thanks for the link and update.

peter_the_piper

Have you posted this on CAG and Pepipoo?

Coupon-mad

Hope it gets posted on CAG and pepipoo as well. This needs lots of well-constructed replies with evidence and links to the sort of tactics used by the PPCs.

Oh, and it may be obvious to some but - just a plea for people NOT to call them 'PPCs' in your submission - those initials are just a forum shortening of 'Private Parking Companies'. PPC means nothing to everyone else and looks daft when quoted elsewhere, confusing everyone!

I will prepare something and submit it to them in a day or two. Thanks OP for the linky and info.

jkdd77

In making any submission, don't forget to mention that, as others have said on:
http://publicreadingstage.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/54-offence-of-immobilising-etc-vehicles
and as lawyers have said on:
http://ofinteresttolwayers.blogspot.com/2011/02/goodbye-clamping.html, and
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2011/02/vehicle-immobilisation-clamping.html
that clause 54(3), which negates clause 54(2) where a barrier is fitted, will mean that clamping and towing to extract a ransom from the victim will remain entirely lawful so long as a barrier is fitted at the entry to the private parking area in which clamping or towing takes place.

This would appear to negate the entire purpose of the clause, namely to outlaw private clamping and towing, and would seem to be an extraordinary and unintended loophole, allowing the clampers to continue to act as judge, jury and bailiff and to ignore CCJs. It also contradicts the public statements by Ministers, and the explanatory notes, that "private wheelclamping is being abolished altogether on private land".

If it were me, I would also draw attention to:
i) the tendency of PPCs to clamp unlawfully (including blue badge holders, including permit-holders in their own spaces and even including unlawfully clamping over alleged past debts), demand extortionate sums and to ignore CCJs with complete impunity by hiding behind PO Box addresses, hiding behind the rule against seizing "tools of trade" and phoenixing repeatedly.
ii) the enormous difficulty in holding the landowner (or managing agents) responsible in such cases, given the tendency of county court judges to rule that they are not liable for the actions of the clamping firm their agents
iii) the notorious actions of certain police forces in siding absolutely with the clampers even where the circumstances of the clamping or towing are such that it is downright criminal, and of course threatening arrest for "criminal damage" if the victim lays a finger on the clamp despite the total absence of realistic alternatives to "self-help" given (i) and (ii)

peter_the_piper

So, does 54(3) mean that if a barrier is erected (locked in up position or not working) then clamping would be lawful?

ripped_off_driver

jkdd77 wrote: »

In making any submission, don't forget to mention that, as others have said on:
http://publicreadingstage.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/54-offence-of-immobilising-etc-vehicles
and as lawyers have said on:
http://ofinteresttolwayers.blogspot.com/2011/02/goodbye-clamping.html, and
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2011/02/vehicle-immobilisation-clamping.html
that clause 54(3), which negates clause 54(2) where a barrier is fitted, will mean that clamping and towing to extract a ransom from the victim will remain entirely lawful so long as a barrier is fitted at the entry to the private parking area in which clamping or towing takes place.

This would appear to negate the entire purpose of the clause, namely to outlaw private clamping and towing, and would seem to be an extraordinary and unintended loophole, allowing the clampers to continue to act as judge, jury and bailiff and to ignore CCJs. It also contradicts the public statements by Ministers, and the explanatory notes, that "private wheelclamping is being abolished altogether on private land".

</p>
I don't think this is right. As I read it the draft Bill says that if there is a barrier the motorist gives implied consent to having it restricted etc by the barrier. It does not say that clamping inside the barrier will be lawful.

peter_the_piper

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles
54 Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles
(1) A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a) immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part
of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b) moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,
intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise
entitled to remove it.
(2) The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person
otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or
restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where—
(a) there is express or implied consent by the driver of the vehicle to
restricting its movement by a fixed barrier, and
(b) the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise
restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked.

Does seem to be confusing.

AlexisV

(2) The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding)

A law to enable you to act unlawfully. Brilliant.

peter_the_piper

1) illegal unless you have lawful authority ie police, council, dvla. Am I right so far?
2) Express of implied permission does not make them a lawful authority. Seems reasonable -as I read it it means just because you have a sign up does not allow you to clamp/tow/block.
3) This is the one they will jump on although it seems to say that you can block someone in who should not be there if you do it with a permanent barrier/gate. What it does do imho is to allow clamping if there's a gate/barrier even if its left open to entice someone in.
Again have I interpreteted it correctly?

trisontana

This from a briefing prepared by Consumer Focus and the CAB:-

Clause 56 should be removed. It allows creditors to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges, whether or not the keeper was the driver at the time the charge was incurred. This allows a creditor to hold a non-contracting party responsible for a breach of contract in which they played no part. This would undermine a long held legal principle. Clause 56 also requires parking operators to meet certain conditions before they can pursue the keeper of the vehicle for any unpaid charges. But it places no burden of proof on the parking operator to demonstrate that these conditions have been met, nor does it provide a system of dispute resolution for vehicle keepers pursued for payment where these conditions are not met.