Proposed (nasty) amendments to Protection of Freedoms Bill

Sirdan

Firstly :


"The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles

(when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land)."

if this goes through then it means that "damages" for a tresspass or other tort become the amount the PPC puts on the sign ,as opposed to the actual real damages !!!!

Or at least thats how I read it.

Secondly :- (On keeper liability)

‘6 (1)

The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of


the creditor)—


(a)

has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 6A, followed


by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 6B; or


(b)

has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 6C."


Paragraph 6C allows for the notice to keeper to be sent by post so effectively PPCs can use this as a loophole round the requirement to affix a "notice to the driver" on the vehicle ...so ANPR will continue to be used ..as I read it.!!! :-(

These amendments were tabled on 14/09/2011 it remains to be seen if they are actually adopted.

torontoboy45

thanks for the heads-up, but can you clarify who tabled this/ provide a link?

TBH, it looks a bit mickeymouse-ish to me -even as an amendment - but,hey ho, anything's possible with commons committees these days.

the 'upper house', as my american friend keeps calling the Lords, may inject some common sense (assuming it gets that far).

not that I'm holding my breath.

Sirdan

This is the link there are lots of other amendments I picked those two as the worst on a quick scan.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0189/amend/pbc189110914a.3331-3337.html

These are government sponsored changes offically tabled by the Home Secretary.

The Government have also included this as a proposal :-

"7A(1)

The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.


(2)

The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.


(3)

The provision made under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, include


provision—


(a)

requiring notices of more than one kind to be displayed on any relevant


land;


(b)

as to the content or form of any notices required to be displayed; and


(c)

as to the location of any notices required to be displayed.


(4)

Regulations under this paragraph may—


(a)

include incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving


provision;


(b)

make different provision for different areas or purposes.’."


So they are allowing themselves the power to make regulations re notices/signs similar to those which govern Council parking enforcement.
All in all it looks very bad ..HMG are slowly but surely sleep walking into giving these charges statutory footing , notwithstanding that they are still governed ultimately by Contract Law (excepting where parking is not allowed which is trespass).

It's not a big stretch to see that unscrupulous PPCS will argue you either saw the sign and entered the contract OR if you did not agree to be bound by the contract then you were trespassing ..either way the charge is due !!!

BUT in cases where the keeper is pursued (which will be ALL of them ,why waste money on NPOs) where does that leave the doctrine of privity in contracts ???

Coupon-mad

'national authority'?!

'statutory instrument'?!


!!!!!!? :eek:

esmerobbo

The more I see of this and the further along it gets it looks more and more like the biggest cockup ever!

TheBogsDollocks

I see the grubby lobbying of the BPA is having some effect. The BPA on the whole only represents private parking companies with only a pinch of local authority interests. People need to contact their MP's and kick up a stink otherwise the Freedoms Bill will be a farce as it will not benefit the motoring public. It may end clamping but it will legitimise private parking fines and this method of enforcement is far more lucrative than clamping.

If the BPA are lobbying for PPC's who is lobbying on behalf the common motorist?

RENEGADE_2

ANPR - easily avoided, have your plates covered on arrival.

peter_the_piper

TheBogsDollocks wrote: »

If the BPA are lobbying for PPC's who is lobbying on behalf the common motorist?

Regretably it seems to be the AA. Not sure they are very effective as there is not one person solely in charge of this wheras the BPA have loads.

vax2002

The Answer is in all of our hands, let them pass all the legislation they require.
DO NOT shop or use any business or private car park that employs PPC's
Do not vote for ANY MP that votes in favour of the bill and e.mail them to make sure they understand this.
Problem solved.
Let them that do learn the hard way.
I do not shop at the local ASDA, because they use a PPC nor any of the shops at Castleford retail park, because they use PPC's.
I will pay a few pence more to shop at establishments that do not try to scam customers.
I suggest everyone concerned at PPC's does exactly the same, including, pubs and restaurants.
Let you MP Know, he will loose your vote and seat possibly on the gravy train if they support this bill..
http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

vax2002

I shall be using the link above to send my MP this letter.:

Feel free to do a edit copy and paste to your MP http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

Dear sirs/ madam
As a supporter of you for election to the role of MP, I feel that I must make my presentation clearly known on the forth coming Proposed Protection of Freedoms Bill and amendments which are been made.
A private organisation known as the British Parking association is lobbying MP'S and parliament heavily to influence parliamentary legalisation to maximise profits for its members who are in turn the very people that issue fake parking tickets upon members of the public, such as those placed on private land, basically these are fake parking tickets which are very closely designed to imitate those issued by local councils.
Victims of these fake parking tickets are then subjected to what can only be describes as a torrent of harassment for what is an illegal penalty as the basis of our laws quite clearly state that a private company can not levy a fine upon the public.
The amendments that are been lobbied by the British Parking association will enhance the opportunity of these impersonators of authority to further harass your constituents with fake fines.
I am sure you are already more than aware of the methods used by these private parking companies.
Commonly used things such as sending imitation debt collecting and solicitors letters which initiate from the same company. Charging further illegal penalties in late payment charges against people who are intimidated and frightened in to paying what is a illegal penalty and has been judged to be so in court.
Basically the private parking Charge industry is a scam and I feel that as someone I elected to represent me in Parliament I would have no other ethical choice but to withdraw my support and vote from yourself if you were to vote in favour of this bill and amendments lobbied by the Private Parking charge lobby which as it would be in effect allowing scammers to set our laws for their own benefit.
I suggest in the strongest terms you research this bill and the lobbying of the British parking association and the illegal penalties they charge and subsequent claims for further moneys and make a informed choice if this is the kind of legalisation you are happy to support.
If so I am afraid to inform you that if you support this bill I shall not be able to support you in future and shall desist from voting for anyone supporting legislation that allows crooks to set the law.
Yours:.........................
amendments to Protection of Freedoms Bill + protection of freedom bill

robredz

@Vax2002 12:28 pm

I have already written to my MP on this subject, using the Parking Eye in Llanduno as my example along with the investigation of that organisation by various Trading standards, but I haven't had a reply so will use your excellent letter as a foundation and send him another one..