Warning - new legislation on parking charge notices

Sirdan

robredz wrote: »

As per HO87 post #3, they are dealing with the fundamentals of Contract Law, and Privity is a fundamental part, as in the test of: " has the person/agency the ppc is attempting to bind by the driver's action, have any CONTROL over their actions and use of the vehicle day to day?" if not and it would be difficult to prove they had, then the contract should fail.

What I think that Schedule 4 is designed to do, and making bad law whilst it is at it, is to impose an obligation on the RK/Owner, in a manner similar to the criminal sanction under Section 172 Road traffic Act 1988 that places a Legal Obligation on the RK to name the driver puts an obligation on the registered keeper (or anybody else who can provide the information) to supply the identity of the driver. This obligation goes against the normal principle that people should not be required to incriminate themselves or others unless they want to. The penalty for failing to provide this information (since the 24th September 2007 when the penalties were increased) is 6 penalty points and a fine of up to £1,000.


The civil pseudo tortious liability imposed on the RK to pay the charges incurred no matter how excessive and unreasonable, by a driver is a ludicrous twisting of law. If allowed it will be unworkable as it will still be open to challenge on Privity of contract,



That could be a good argument against it when writing to MP's

Of course if the keeper was pursued to court the PPC still has hurdles to overcome.

As mentioned privity is one.

Also signage i.e .was the contract properly offered,considered and accepted ?(Not sure how it can be to the keeper if they are not the driver !!!!)

Is the charge a penalty (however it is disguised) which is unenforceable at law ? If not where is the evidence that what is claimed is a proper estimate of losses /damages.

and possibly,where is the evidence that an invoice was affixed to the vehicle or handed to the person in control of said vehicle whilst the vehicle was parked ? (Schedule 4 makes this a must..no more "ANPR" invoices.)

In summary all the hurdles that exist now (except for who was driving) still exist plus the question of evidence that the "ticket" (invoice) was properly served in the first place !:rotfl:

However that said no doubt the PPCs will continue to use the "threat" model of business not actual court actions. As such if Schedule 4 goes through they will genuinely be able to say "in the abscence of driver details you the keeper are liable" ..so unwitting keepers could well lose out.
I wouldn't put it past the "ANPR" brigade to continue regardless hoping that keepers won't check schedule 4 and notice the clause which requires the "ticket" to be physically served on the vehicle/driver.
Probably fraudulent but since when has that stopped a PPC ?

bromsgrovebarry

Good post Sirdan. Perky may be gloating but he may well have cause to choke on one of his pies.

trisontana

bromsgrovebarry wrote: »

Good post Sirdan. Perky may be gloating but he may well have cause to choke on one of his pies.

This also goes for Peter Hasbeen of UKCPS who is so certain this will go ahead it's already mentioned on their website. Poor disillusioned fool.

Kite2010

Has anybody made up a template letter in which people could send to their MPs complaining about schedule 4?

If so, could I have a copy please

robredz

Kite2010 wrote: »

Has anybody made up a template letter in which people could send to their MPs complaining about schedule 4?

If so, could I have a copy please

You could put something along these lines, but a template can be too rigid, and the poor MP LoL may get brainfade reading countless same old same old template letters.

Dear MP

The Freedom Bill is a welcome step in reducing the number of bad and outmoded pieces of legislation; however an area of great concern, and a possible severe impact on people who have nothing whatsoever to do with a tortious liability incurred by another, is
Schedule 4, which makes provision for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle in cases where it is not known who was driving the vehicle when the charges were incurred

Schedule 4 states:
"The first condition is that the creditor
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the terms of the relevant contract which require the unpaid parking charges to be paid; but
(b) is unable to enforce those terms against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."

This is a step too far within Civil Legislation as it appears to place on a third party a Civil version of the Criminal S172 Road Traffic Act where a keeper or owner MUST name the driver of a vehicle on pain of Criminal sanction that could lead them to loss of licence and possibly livelihood as a consequence of refusal to name.

I feel also this provision opens a breach within the Law of Contract itself, by appearing to disregard the Privity of contract, by attempting to bind third parties with no knowledge of an alleged contract until the Parking Charge (itself a possibly unlawful civil penalty) arrives. This "penalty" is often way above any actual loss that the parking agent has suffered, as in £0.00 for overstaying in a free car park.

it is not unreasonable to assume that other companies and individuals may well try to extend this new definition of privity to other areas governed by contract law, say a bank or lender putting a clause binding a debtors parents in as guarantor without their express consent or signature.

Notwithstanding the potential for clash with the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, where certain PPC's have signage small print that attempts to bind "Anyone with a Proprietal interest in a vehicle parked" by the driver's action in parking there, potentially making a finance company liable for the Parking Invoice; I feel that this Section of the Freedom Bill is fundamentally flawed and should be removed.

It fails the test of reasonableness as it appears to legitimise excessive and wrongful civil penalties by an already out of control and badly regulated "industry" and the potential for sensational headlines when a parking contractor relentlessly pursues a Motability car user, or a pensioner for their ludicrous charges is immense.

Yours Sincerely



I have sent something to my MP on those lines with added examples and quotation from the press related to misdeeds by Perky Pieman's buddies

Over to the rest of you

peter_the_piper

Thanks, borrowed and modded.

bromsgrovebarry

Good letter, I will amend to prevent a thousand cloned letters arriving at my MP's doorstep. Although I will send the letter I am afraid that MP's are more concerned with towing party lines than responding to the concerns of their constituants. If the bill is passed I can see some very interesting challenges.

robredz

bromsgrovebarry wrote: »

Good letter, I will amend to prevent a thousand cloned letters arriving at my MP's doorstep. Although I will send the letter I am afraid that MP's are more concerned with towing party lines than responding to the concerns of their constituants. If the bill is passed I can see some very interesting challenges.

They won't know what has hit them if they pass this and it goes pear shaped, and Perky wins a case, and sends the bailiff to clear out that disabled pensioner's house:mad:

peter_the_piper

Having re read the text above there seems to be some wriggle room regarding clamping. The text uses the words "commercially Run" and £Privately operated"
these imply run for profit car parks IMV. Does that leave a hole for the free car parks at backs of shops etc to still be clampable? I'm probaby reading too much into it (or not enough)

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Having re read the text above there seems to be some wriggle room regarding clamping. The text uses the words "commercially Run" and £Privately operated"
these imply run for profit car parks IMV. Does that leave a hole for the free car parks at backs of shops etc to still be clampable? I'm probaby reading too much into it (or not enough)

NO the statute as written makes no mention of commercially run or privately operated it merely says that where there is consent (implied or otherwise) to immobilisation by a barrier then such immobilisation is not an offence.
There is not anyl oophole where clamping or blocking or towing on private land is allowed.