Protection of Freedoms Bill -Update

bargepole

I can't see a "viable funding mechanism" being established for years, if ever. The Government certainly won't fund this, and I'd think it unlikely that PPCs would want to pay a levy of £x per ticket issued, just so that an independent body can rule that 65% of tickets appealed should be cancelled (a similar %age to Council tickets), they'd much rather stick with the present arrangement of threatening letters.

This whole schedule 4 business is looking like a dead duck already.

Sirdan

bargepole wrote: »

I can't see a "viable funding mechanism" being established for years, if ever. The Government certainly won't fund this, and I'd think it unlikely that PPCs would want to pay a levy of £x per ticket issued, just so that an independent body can rule that 65% of tickets appealed should be cancelled (a similar %age to Council tickets), they'd much rather stick with the present arrangement of threatening letters.

This whole schedule 4 business is looking like a dead duck already.

Quite so.

The impact assessment makes it clear that HMG expect the industry to pay for the funding of an independent adjudicator.

"The main affected group in relation to the wheel clamping is the parking industry due to a loss of fee income (partly offset by abolition of licensing) and the annual cost of funding an independent appeals service in relation to keeper liability for certain unpaid parking charges. "

However I wouldn't put it past the industry to simply increase the cost of each invoice to cover this i.e £60 will now be £80 , £80 to £100 etc etc ...
No way are the BPA going to want a dent in their members profits !!

HO87

Am I wrong to believe that PATAS and TPT are funded by a levy on councils for each PCN issued? Something like 60p each? if that was mirrored in the private sector even at £1 per pretend ticket issued an independent PPC Tribunal would be funded to the tune of over £1m per annum at current rates (based on the number of DVLA checks done).

Still wouldn't stop PPC's increasing the charge though.

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

Am I wrong to believe that PATAS and TPT are funded by a levy on councils for each PCN issued? Something like 60p each? if that was mirrored in the private sector even at £1 per pretend ticket issued an independent PPC Tribunal would be funded to the tune of over £1m per annum at current rates (based on the number of DVLA checks done).

Still wouldn't stop PPC's increasing the charge though.

I still fail to understand how an adjudicator which is established by the BPA and funded by it's members can be considered in anyway independent.

To whom would this "independent" adjudicator be answerable if their independence were to be challenged ??
Will there be yet another layer ..some kind of Ombudsman ..and who establishes and funds that ?

AlexisV

No problem with a TPT/PATAS system on private land *if* it was as thorough as the public highways system.

This would have to involve approved signage, off-street regulation order and a nationwide system of independent legal arbiters. In theory, the most efficient way of doing it would be to pass it over to the TPT.

I would also relish getting Perky to have to travel around the country to attend hearings!

Be careful what you wish for. Exchanging a speculative invoicing business model for something more thorough may not be as attractive as they think, especially when it comes to the smaller PPC's.

bargepole

I don't think HMG would let the BPA get away with an "independent" appeals body comprising its own members. The tribunals would have to be staffed by properly independent people, perhaps council officials on secondment, solicitors, magistrates, that kind of person.

As for the cost, Councils issued around 4.5million tickets last lear, so at 60p levy that's about £2.7 million for a national infrastructure of appeal tribunals. The PPCs would have to cough up a similar amount to get their own national set up, which would equate to £2.50 - £3 per ticket, on top of the £2.50 to the DVLA. I'm not sure they'd be up for it.

HO87

Sirdan wrote: »

I still fail to understand how an adjudicator which is established by the BPA and funded by it's members can be considered in anyway independent.

To whom would this "independent" adjudicator be answerable if their independence were to be challenged ??
Will there be yet another layer ..some kind of Ombudsman ..and who establishes and funds that ?

Any adjudicator would be answerable to themselves or probably just a committee setup outside the BPA - so they can justify being called "independent" - but composed of its members and some its more malleable "stakeholders". Such an adjudicator would just be another money-making exercise used as a sop to public concern. It will look independent but importantly keeps the money sloshing around in the same [STRIKE]cess[/STRIKE]pool.

As I have repeatedly said, an independent adjudicator already exists. Its called the Small Claims Court.

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Another thing that floated to the friont of my pea brain, I assume that all car parks will have to have parking place orders to bring them into line with the council ones.

NO ! Schedule 4 specifically exempts land where vehicles are subject to "statutory control" from it's provisions.

As I understand it a parking place order is a statutory control so it follows that Schedule 4 will not apply in those places.

In summary although there may be keeper liability the relevant law is still CONTRACT law not statute.

Quite how under contract law a keeper can be liable for a contract he is unaware of is beyond me......I mean what about privity ..and offer ,consideration and acceptance ??

I fail to see this getting off the ground at all..it either stays as is or it becomes statutory.

As has been said before is it really parliaments intention to give private profiteers statutory powers of enforcement ..whatever next Perky's Private Police Force ..cleaning up your neighbourhood..for a modest fee of course !!!:eek:

AlexisV

Well the amusing thing would be if the government and BPA set up a scheme and then 90% of tickets were cancelled on the ground of them being contractual penalties.

I can see the government pushing some half baked idea through with more holes than a colander.

Does anyone know of any other change in law that enabled private companies to fine people?

peter_the_piper

Unfortunately I would assume you are right but thought that the statement ""There
will be consistency between the enforcement regimes on the public road and private land"" would hopefully put them under the same regime as public land.So they want to have consistency but can't because sched 4 excludes it. What a mess.