Home Office Keeper Liability Impact Assessment

ripped_off_driver

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/legislation/freedom-bill/keeper-liability-parking-ia

I doubt it would be possible for the Government to have swallowed the BPA line more fully.

AlexisV

Business as usual.



And the government seem happy to admit paying remains optional. Their prediction of payment rates are:



And probably the biggest lie since Gaddafi's view on how the war would go:



I hope Pat's nose didn't go straight through the monitor when he typed the letter that stated that.

Sirdan

LOVE this gem, in the Official GOVERNMENT document it says :-

"It is also needed to help reduce the number of penalty charges not being paid, as vehicle keepers becoming increasingly aware that outside of the local authority framework it is the driver who is responsible for parking related charges. The parking industry believes that is resulting in 3% fewer penalty charges being paid each"

Get that BPA -Penalty charges NOT contractual charges

Get that PPC's -your charges ARE penalties ..HMG says so !!

Get that all District Judges ...these are penalties which are not enforceable at law !!

"The money paid by motorists (on average about £75 per case) has not been presented as a direct benefit/cost for the purposes of this assessment and therefore is not presented on the summary sheet because fines/penalties are not considered in economic appraisals"

Oops there it is again that word ..PENALTY !

Inflatable_Armadillo

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/legislation/freedom-bill/keeper-liability-parking-ia

I doubt it would be possible for the Government to have swallowed the BPA line more fully.

That has to be the most worrying document I have seen so far on this issue and they have indeed fallen for the BPA line hook, line & sinker!

Some of the statements are scary and they clearly think that PPC's exist to enforce parking as opposed to what we know, they are huge money generating machines who just want an excuse to issue as many tickets as possible and force people to pay disproportionate charges. They make no estimate of actually how many tickets are issued unfairly by PPC's... and we know that this is the vast majority of them.

Also, as scary as it is, it would appear to change nothing. As they are not going to make the keeper withholding driver details a criminal offence. So, if you are the keeper and/or the driver and think you were issued a ticket unfairly then you would still hold out, ignore (or use their 'independent' (yeh, right!) appeals service) and let them take you to court if they have a case. They are not planning on changing contract or tort trespass law, so most fines would be viewed by the court as disproportionate in law for damages anyway and then you end up paying a fraction of the amount they damanded at worst.

It doesn't work... what a load of crap!

Inflatable_Armadillo

Sirdan wrote: »

LOVE this gem, in the Official GOVERNMENT document it says :-

"It is also needed to help reduce the number of penalty charges not being paid, as vehicle keepers becoming increasingly aware that outside of the local authority framework it is the driver who is responsible for parking related charges. The parking industry believes that is resulting in 3% fewer penalty charges being paid each"

Get that BPA -Penalty charges NOT contractual charges

Get that PPC's -your charges ARE penalties ..HMG says so !!

Get that all District Judges ...these are penalties which are not enforceable at law !!

I spotted that and thought how nice it was of an official government document to provide an absolute defence in court, if they bother taking your there!

peter_the_piper

Have I read page7/8 correctly. government will not make keeper liability a criminal offence? Later they say the BPA expect to give out an extra 500,000 tickets.

edit duplicted from above.

AlexisV

It's just a discarded option. Won't happen.

Why would 500,000 extra "tickets" be issued? Are they planning on binning signage? Hardly backs up the 'landowners rights' line does it?

AlexisV

At a tangent, there are some submissions here about the DVLA: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/dda/contents.htm

I recommend you read number 9 for some home truths: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/dda/dda09.htm]

The BPA submission is also rather amusing.

PO Boxes

10 Post Office Box numbers appear to be accepted as a valid address. It is not however possible to enforce a warrant against such an address.

Ironically they are whinging that they keep coming across keepers with PO Boxes and that they can't serve 'warrants'. That would be most PPC's wouldn't it Pat?

Coupon-mad

' Disability Equality
There are no disability related issues in these proposals. A number of disabled people will be entitled to a Blue Badge which enables them to park in certain circumstances where other motorists might not be able to park, and to park in spaces designated for the holders of Blue Badges only. The provisions will enable landowners to take enforcement action against the keeper of a vehicle in certain circumstances that include – for instance - using a bay reserved for blue badge holders without displaying a valid Blue Badge. The proposals will, therefore, indirectly benefit some disabled people by helping to safeguard the parking facilities designated for Blue Badge holders. '




Pah!!!!!!!! They are advocating breaking the Equality Act!


Who is the Jason Donovan(!) mentioned in the form at the end? Where is Kylie in all this?

Do you think we can all just email that Peter Bake on the addy given:
[EMAIL="justiceimpact@justice.gsi.gov.uk"]justiceimpact@justice.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

...to point out the glaring errors in the assessment which has clearly been practically dictated by the BPA. They have called the charges 'penalties/fines' when they are clearly nothing of the sort and are a 'benefit' to PPCs upon which VAT is payable (this report words it that it's 'just a transfer' between registered keeper and a PPC!).

Absolutely shocking. Has anyone emailed it to Watchdog yet?

Inflatable_Armadillo

I think it should go to Watchdog and Martin Lewis!

However, I have just noticed the document has been signed by the 'responsible minister'. We need to find out who that minister is and my suggestion would be that we target him/her at point out the bleedin obvious to them!

Who would have signed it... it is just a squiggle to me?

Edit: here as the ministers at the home office - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/our-organisation/ministers/

I can't even guess which one of them signed it?

Inflatable_Armadillo

Hang on, the document says the lead department is the DfT and not the Home Office. So maybe it is the DfT minister we need to contact?