Letter To MP

Fergie76

I would be grateful, if people could critique my letter. Add or change it in anyway you think it will be better.

[FONT=&quot]Dear Mr MP,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I feel compelled to write to you today with regard to Private Parking Company’s (PPC’s), the British Parking Association (BPA) and the proposed Protection of Freedoms Bill.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As I am sure you are aware the private parking industry is big business and they have managed to take control of most supermarket and retail car parks. In my opinion, in many cases they are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and in actual fact cause many more problems. They actually want people to breach their so called contracts or else they don’t make money.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When they believe someone has breached their rules, they issue them invoices, which are often referred to as fines or penalties, however private companies cannot fine or penalise private citizens. PPC’s then continue to harass and intimidate the registered owner of the vehicle, when in actual fact, they alleged contract is actually with the driver. The registered keeper is under no obligation to provide details of who the driver is.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The private organisation that is the BPA, have been heavily lobbying Parliament to try and bring some legitimacy to the private parking industry under the guise of the proposed Protection of Freedoms Bill, but it is all in favour of their paying members the PPC’s and definitely not in favour of your motoring constituents. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]One of the principal proposals under the above bill, is to make the registered keeper liable for the contract that the driver of the car is deemed to have entered in to. How can someone, who may not be present, enter in to a contract? One of the fundamental provisions of contract law is privity, which this would fly in the face of.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I trust that, you as my MP, will be opposing these changes to do with PPC’s and will be lobbying your colleagues to do the same? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have attached two links to websites which deal with the worried law abiding citizens, that have been threatened by these companies, I would urge you to take time to read some of the various threads.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above matters.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]……………….. [/FONT]

EHBA

Fergie76 wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]One of the principal proposals under the above bill, is to make the registered keeper liable for the contract that the driver of the car is deemed to have entered in to. How can someone, who may not be present, enter in to a contract? One of the fundamental provisions of contract law is privity, which this would fly in the face of.[/FONT]

Not quite, this from Norman Baker, Parliamentary Under Sec of State, Dept for Tpt


A vehicle's driver is responsible for parking charges incurred on private land. This can make it impossible to enforce the charges if the registered keeper denies responsibility and will not provide details of the driver. I should add that the problem is likely to increase when wheel clamping on private land is banned. Provisions in Schedule 4 of the Bill will mean that the vehicle keeper is liable for any unpaid parking related charges incurred by the vehicle. The provisions will also mean that the vehicle keeper may either pay the charges or notify the creditor of the name and address of the driver at the material time

Perhaps one of the biggest groups ( 15 million ? ) any changes will have an effect on is women shoppers. Based on what my wife tells me, many will be unlikely to take much notice of signs in free supermarket and retail parks unless they were so blatantly obvious that retailers might think twice about putting their customers off.

Has anyone written to their female MP ?

Sirdan

"The provisions will also mean that the vehicle keeper may either pay the charges or notify the creditor of the name and address of the driver at the material time"

VERY NAUGHTY MINISTER !!! has he been trained by the BPA`???

What he has written heavily implies that Schedule 4 will place a statutory obligation on a keeper to either pay up or put up (name) the driver.

As drafted Schedule 4 of course does no such thing ..PPC "tickets" remain merely invoices governed by Contract law and as such the keeper can choose to ignore them ..there is no statutory obligation here at all.

Fergie76

Any other comments before I send this off?