Schedule 4 ...the latest twist

Sirdan

Latest ..a new clause which is being proposed :-

1)

A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority requires a driver or any person in possession of a vehicle to pay parking charges in relation to a contract to park that vehicle.

(2)

The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to enter into a contract regarding parking is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3)

Subsection (2) does not apply where—


(a)

the person or body attempting to enforce the parking charges is a member of an Accredited Trade Association so accredited by the Secretary of State;


(b)

the penalty charge can be appealed to an independent body;


(c)

the person or body attempting to enforce the parking charges takes
reasonable steps to inform the driver or keeper of the vehicle about the
right to appeal; and

(d)
the person or body follows a prescribed parking enforcement process
including clear signage and contact numbers.


(4)

The Secretary of State can, by way of regulation, introduce a maximum charge,under which parking charges would not be subject to subsection (1).


(5)

A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.

(6)

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—


(a)

on conviction on indictment, to a fine,


(b)

on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum


which must be no higher than charges for an on-street parking offence.


(7)

In this section “motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.’.

Section 1 looks good until it is totally undermined by Section 4 ...talk about a dogs dinner ..where will they go next with this !

esmerobbo

I think they have no :idea:

The courts are going to love this hogwash!

AlexisV

This is what interests me: parking charges in relation to a contract

As long as the Act keeps referring to the charges as such, most of them will be as unenforceable as they are today.

Unless the Act allows and states private companies are granted power to issue a PENALTY, the status quo remains.

peter_the_piper

I'll bee honest, I'm not sure I understood a word of that. 1) seems to say they can't charge you for parking.

HO87

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I'll bee honest, I'm not sure I understood a word of that. 1) seems to say they can't charge you for parking.

Correct, but provided they are BPA members, have a suitable independent appeals mechanism, take steps to inform the driver/keeper of the appeals process and have suitable signs and processes its OK.

Another sop to the public with the grubby mutt prints of the BPA all over and through it.

They are also proposing to make the offence triable either way which just creates another opportunity to top up solicitors' retirement funds.

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

Correct, but provided they are BPA members, have a suitable independent appeals mechanism, take steps to inform the driver/keeper of the appeals process and have suitable signs and processes its OK.

Another sop to the public with the grubby mutt prints of the BPA all over and through it.

They are also proposing to make the offence triable either way which just creates another opportunity to top up solicitors' retirement funds.

Except that if a regulation is made under Section 4 as long as the amount they wish to charge is less than the prescribed amount then none of Section 1 applies.
Therefore any cowboys can charge these smaller amounts and only BPA cowboys can charge more ! If this goes through I wonder what said amount would be ....probably similar amount to Statutory penalty tickets !!

Sirdan

AlexisV wrote: »

This is what interests me: parking charges in relation to a contract

As long as the Act keeps referring to the charges as such, most of them will be as unenforceable as they are today.

Unless the Act allows and states private companies are granted power to issue a PENALTY, the status quo remains.

Except that the more pseudo regulation they write in re signage etc. the more inclined courts will be to consider the contracts offered as valid....probably...well maybe ..but there again maybe not ....what a total mess !

peter_the_piper

HO87 wrote: »

Correct, but provided they are BPA members, have a suitable independent appeals mechanism, take steps to inform the driver/keeper of the appeals process and have suitable signs and processes its OK.

Another sop to the public with the grubby mutt prints of the BPA all over and through it.

They are also proposing to make the offence triable either way which just creates another opportunity to top up solicitors' retirement funds.

I was not thinking so much about the Charge they try to fine you with but the £2.50 per hour bit.

Coupon-mad

Not feeling too well today but what £2.50 per hour bit?

None of the above seems to make much sense at all.

!!!!!! Government Ministers, this is meant to be the Freedoms Bill. Just ban clamping and ban private ticketing, PPCs provide no service whatsoever anywhere - in particular get them out of hospitals, out of universities, out of retail parks and out of motorway services. They are bleeding people dry and nothing is done about it - even the retailers do not realise it when their own customers are ripped off, the hospitals don't care when their staff are scammed. It is a scandal!

Make them work for their money as PARKING companies - in other words, let them own car parks and charge a small amount to park; let them provide barriers & gates & kiosks and P&D machines and entry systems if needed, for retailers & landowners. Let them scuttle back under their stone where they were before they jumped on this money-making bandwagon.

Do not give them statutory powers - this is broken Britain at its worst. :mad:

peter_the_piper

I was thinking more of the charge(fee) per hour for parking rather than any "made up charge" for contravening their made up regs. In my feeble opinion it hangs on the definition of the word charge. Probably wrong and grasping at straws.

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I was not thinking so much about the Charge they try to fine you with but the £2.50 per hour bit.

Thats exactly why Section 4 exists (well one reason) ..if Section 4 sets the maximum charge at around, for example, £60 ..then car parks operated by anyone`can still charge £2.50 an hour ...simples