Attention: future problems

RENEGADE_2

It has already been said that PPCs are seeking their payments legally from the registered keeper. I now know that this is a proposal within the 2011 Protection of Freedoms Bill. It is set to outlaw clamping but it will help PPCs slightly:


Clause 56: Recovery of unpaid parking charges
203. Clause 56 gives effect to Schedule 4 which makes provision in certain
circumstances, for the recovery of unpaid parking related charges incurred under a
contract from the keeper of a vehicle"

*" The scheme
provides that, subject to certain conditions being met, the keeper of a vehicle may be
made liable for an unpaid parking charge that has been incurred by the driver of the
vehicle having entered into a contract with a landowner and/or his or her agent in
relation to parking the vehicle on the landowner’s land. The scheme is based on the
legal analysis that a driver of a vehicle by parking on private land impliedly accepts
the landowner’s offer to park (or that of a parking company acting as the landowner’s
agent), or prohibition on parking and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions
(including any parking charges and the associated enforcement mechanism for those
charges) advertised on a notice board at the entrance to and within the land"

Does anyone know any more on this?

I am sure they still won't be going to court or successfully extracting money from the congoscenti...I mean, unlike Railway Byelaw 14 which allows train operators to penalise vehicle owners, the matter is outside of contract law whilst this remains within. Note that the protocol also states the words "enter into contract with" but surely this does not spell the end. Is it not the case that many drivers have replied to threatograms admitting to be the driver but arguing that the amount is extortionate and inconsistent with actual losses (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977)? Obviously the PPC will not admit this, but unless the law also excludes private parking from the other contract regulations then I cannot see this amendment being much use to the swines. The unsuspecting pay their charges anyway and those with better knowledge also know the arguments to avoid them. Does anyone know any more about this?

RENEGADE_2

Note also that ANPR will still not be valid: only authorities can pursue cases by sending charges in the post. Before March 2008 even they couldn't and the changes in the law from that month was worded as applying to councils only. In addition, the continued threatograms will certainly push an even faster civil case when the victim sues the PPC and their cronies for activities breaching harassment laws.

esmerobbo

This has been discussed at length, there are a few posts regarding the freedom bill.
I did find something from CAB which surprised me as they seem to have got something right regarding PPC's


http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/protection_of_freedoms_bill_briefing_-_february_2011.pdf

robredz

esmerobbo wrote: »

This has been discussed at length, there are a few posts regarding the freedom bill.
I did find something from CAB which surprised me as they seem to have got something right regarding PPC's


http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/protection_of_freedoms_bill_briefing_-_february_2011.pdf

Yes they appear to be on the right lines here, pity their advice is so variable dependent on area.

NeverAgain_2

...pity their advice is so variable dependent on area...

Very hard to achieve consistency in an organisation largely staffed by volunteers.

robredz

NeverAgain wrote: »

...pity their advice is so variable dependent on area...

Very hard to achieve consistency in an organisation largely staffed by volunteers.

I think it is down to funding more than anything else, as the Councils, provide a great deal of CAB funding. Guess who gets kicked by CAB when they send in the bailiffs for Council Tax...

Paranoid

"provides that, subject to certain conditions being met, the keeper of a vehicle may be made liable for an unpaid parking charge that has been incurred by the driver of the vehicle having entered into a contract with a landowner and/or his or her agent in relation to parking the vehicle on the landowner’s land......."

It worries me that this may lead to a 'loophole' for the villains to create a scenario suggesting that you can park but have to pay. How to pay does not have to be simple like buying a ticket at a machine and could (?) lead to argument about signs etc, as now. And making the keeper liable a further threat from villains' having ready access to the DVLA database.

Any views?

robredz

Paranoid wrote: »

"provides that, subject to certain conditions being met, the keeper of a vehicle may be made liable for an unpaid parking charge that has been incurred by the driver of the vehicle having entered into a contract with a landowner and/or his or her agent in relation to parking the vehicle on the landowner’s land......."

It worries me that this may lead to a 'loophole' for the villains to create a scenario suggesting that you can park but have to pay. How to pay does not have to be simple like buying a ticket at a machine and could (?) lead to argument about signs etc, as now. And making the keeper liable a further threat from villains' having ready access to the DVLA database.

Any views?

Leads to a great credit/debit card issue if they introduce pay by phone like Westminster CC does for motorcycles, also if it is a delivery vehicle, the Transport Manager is likely to boycott stores and other areas where his vans are targetted, as the Company may well be RK

trisontana

I have asked this question before. What do they mean by "parking charge"? Is it the "ordinary" fee for paying to park, or is it the extra sum demanded for breaking the PPC or landowner's rules? Bearing in mind that the latter would be considered an unfair penalty.

RENEGADE_2

Thank you Trisontana. My sentiments exactly.

It's nice to see that this is creating a public outrage as last night I went to bed thinking I may be fighting this battle alone!!! Still, as long as it remains Contract Law I am sure that "going after the keeper" cannot help them win cases, as I said earlier, many keepers have admitted being drivers in appeals/claim denials yet still there is no court case.

Down with clampers and PPCs.

esmerobbo

trisontana wrote: »

I have asked this question before. What do they mean by "parking charge"? Is it the "ordinary" fee for paying to park, or is it the extra sum demanded for breaking the PPC or landowner's rules? Bearing in mind that the latter would be considered an unfair penalty.

I think who ever wrote this clause actually means as you suggest the legitimate charge. I don't think many would disagree that a company who builds a car park and charges you £10 a day to park should have some way of recovery if people don't pay.
Although a pay at barrier system would deal with most abuse.
As you I am afraid if this clause goes through without adjustments the PPC,s will use it to further intimidate.
They already put undue pressure on the RK, I dread to think what they will get up to if the RK can be pursued.
Mind you it still has to clear the contract and penalty hurdle.