Good News for all

Sirdan

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Here's what will happen under S4.....

RK names driver

Named driver denies it and names RK

RK denies it and we're back to square 1.

Not quite ..Schedule 4 allows the PPC to seek recovery of the unpaid parking charge from the keeper where the identity of the driver is not known.
So unless someone admits to being the driver then the PPC can under Schedule 4 as drafted take the keeper to small claims( and lose) :rotfl:

bargepole

Schedule4Rules wrote: »

If you park in a council carpark over the lines/bays then would you receive a ticket - YES
If you overstay the time allowed in a free council car park then would you receive a ticket - YES
If you did not purchase and display a valid pay and display ticket then would you receive a ticket - YES

So, please tell me why you should think it would be any different in a private car park ?

Because Council car parks are covered by legislation under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which sets out the rules for decriminalised parking enforcement on public highways and land.

Even if Schedule 4 is implemented in its present form (and that looks unlikely if you read the minutes of the parliamentary sub-committee debate), all it does is remove one of the many hurdles a PPC has to clear, to succeed with enforcement of its "charges".

The fundamental point at issue is whether charges for overstaying in free car parks, or charges for parking without a permit in restricted car parks, are a penalty or a valid contractual term.

Regardless of how the signage is worded, in most cases these charges are penalties, which bear no relation to the actual loss suffered by the landowner, or its agent the PPC.

I suspect that when and if s4 comes in, we will see many cases taken to court, possibly even appealed to a higher authority than the County Court, and some interesting decisions arising from that.

Oopsadaisy

Sirdan wrote: »

Not quite ..Schedule 4 allows the PPC to seek recovery of the unpaid parking charge from the keeper where the identity of the driver is not known.
So unless someone admits to being the driver then the PPC can under Schedule 4 as drafted take the keeper to small claims( and lose) :rotfl:

Are you sure?? [Not about the losing bit]. Surely if the RK 'names' the driver, that's them in the clear?

Sirdan

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Are you sure?? [Not about the losing bit]. Surely if the RK 'names' the driver, that's them in the clear?

Depends how you want to interpret it ..def says where the driver is not known ..so if the person named by the keeper says they are not then I reckon that could be taken that the driver remains unknown..so the keeper liability clause could apply..

Since a PPC has no way of identifying a driver then surely in the absence of a "confession" then the driver remains unknown ??

Following your logic if naming a driver puts the keeper in the clear might I suggest we all start naming the director of whatever PPC sends us the invoice and let them take themselves to court !! :-)

Be interesting to see what view a court would take ..

Oopsadaisy

I can't see how the RK can be held responsible for getting the driver to make a 'confession'.

Proper PCNs are straightforward [if unfair]in that it's the RK's liability irrespective of who was driving. Even of you have a signed letter/statement from the driver saying they were driving, the RK is still liable. There are no exceptions....and it's easy to enforce [if as said totally unfair].

s4 is going to be full of holes, so the ppcs will still be stuffed by those in the know.

peter_the_piper

And the ones who aren't will be stuffed, the ppc's will use all sorts of spurious takes on the legislation it'll be a minefield. The law of unintended consequences strikes again. Why on earth did they not stick to just banning clamping and look at private parking later.

SodG24

Schedule4Rules wrote: »

I am pleased to see that Schedule4 will mean that RK are held liable and silly excuses to try and get out of paying for parking charges will be a thing of the past.
I am sure that every PPC in the country is thanking sites like this for pushing the subject to ensure there are no get outs for inconsiderate people parking at locations they should not.
Roll on it being passed :beer:

Errr .... hate to point this out to you but contract law will still stand regardless of who the "contract" is with. Therefore, while PPC charges are so high they will be considered penalties and therefore unenforceable.

Tough luck - I will give credit for coming on here as G24 are a bunch of cowards who don't even have the guts to PM me :rotfl:

peter_the_piper

As the ppc's assume acceptance of contract just by passing a sign surely this comes under unfair terms.

taffy056

Hey haswell as a rk of a vehicle I received an invoice from you scammers a little while ago, if you ask me nicely I will tell you where and when, do you want to try and take me to the small claims ?

Kite2010

Schedule4Rules wrote: »

I can assure you that an independant appeals process will be in place before the end of this year, before anyone asks I know as I have been part of the process.
As of writing you are misguided in your information on the role of the appeals process and how binding it is on either party before they enter into it, but I will post further details as they are finalised.
Please no insults, if you can not enter into a conversation without name calling then maybe you should refrain from participating.

Gary down the pub 'reviewing' the cases over a pint of fosters doesn't count as an independent appeal