Stop Section 56 e-petition - should read this

saabay

http://stopclause56.org.uk/

It appears this clause not only gives PPCs the right to chase registered keepers for the unenforceable invoices but might also introduce an element of criminality into a civil matter. BPA are pushing hard for this to go through and the public appears unaware of its significance.

:mad:

AlexisV

I'm not aware of the RK being guilty of an offence within the Bill if he does not furnish driver details.

I wouldn't worry about it - the Bill is so full of holes it would be completely unworkable as it stands, even for the BPA.

At the moment the BPA want an independent 'appeal' process (which would need a whole section of law to go with it), but the government have said they need to fund it themselves, which they're not too keen on.

saabay

I agree it's pretty tatty as legislation goes. The problem is likely to be that BPA members and other such spurious organisations are likely to think it gives credence to their unlawful activities and use it to frighten unsuspecting members of the public into paying their unlawful charges.

Sirdan

saabay wrote: »

http://stopclause56.org.uk/

It appears this clause not only gives PPCs the right to chase registered keepers for the unenforceable invoices but might also introduce an element of criminality into a civil matter. BPA are pushing hard for this to go through and the public appears unaware of its significance.

:mad:

There certainly is NOT any criminality introduced in the bill with regard to Private Parking Charges, which remain a matter of civil contract law.

It's a lame duck TBH ..the key phrase you have used is "unenforceable invoices" ...not matter who they are allowed to chase/harass that remains the point ..UNENFORCEABLE in law on several points...a few well defended keeper liability cases and we will be back at the status quo ..i.e. these charges are not the proper lawful remedy for trespass or breach of contract.
Chuck in privity...
Chuck in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Chuck in what the High Court judge said in Thurlow v OPC
etc, etc. etc.

Message remains ..IGNORE the PPC threats ..and be sure to get the proper defence if they take a punt at County Court ..which undoubtedly some will try against keepers in the early days.

HO87

I agree. There is no suggestion of criminality within Clause 56 at all but it may be that the OP was simply referring to the fact that this area would now be governed by legislation.

We do however need to let our MP's know what is going on or the BPA will continue to be able to hog the limelight unchallenged. What we need is a PPC equivalent of Tom Watson (he of the NoS phone-hacking fame) who is prepared to take the PPC lobby on at their own game and put them on the spot. We can provide him with the bullets. Any suggestions?