Home Office Keeper Liability Impact Assessment

HO87

Wiked59 wrote: »

Hi
I was clamped yesterday by Parking Direct Ltd - It turns out that the road that I was parked in was private property (Although it was a road leading off of a main road roundabout and it looked just like a normal road onto an industrial estate - tarmacs, kerbs, blah blah blah ) however it was private I did not notice the white cardboard cable tied signs and was clamped - £125 clamping £250 cancellation fee for tow and 2.8% for paying by credit cared. Total £385.50
I requested proof that a towing vehicle had been requested and proof of cancellation but this was not available - I paid by credit card - I would like to know if I challenge this part of the 'fine' and request my card to claim this back, where I would stand???

Firstly, by posting in an established thread you are unlikely to get very many responses. I suggest that you re-post, starting your own thread.

You should immediately start a charge-back process with your credit card company stating that you paid under duress. Don't be fobbed off.

Others will advise further when you re-post.

AlexisV

I don't think you could have picked a more unconnected thread! Did you click on the wrong title? :-)

DrRusty

Reading the document it begs belief that the government want to provide more legitimacy to these companies.

It remains impossible see how a civil breach of contract could be enforced on a person who never entered a contract. His can the registered keeper know that the user is doing with the vehicle.

Sirdan

DrRusty wrote: »

Reading the document it begs belief that the government want to provide more legitimacy to these companies.

It remains impossible see how a civil breach of contract could be enforced on a person who never entered a contract. His can the registered keeper know that the user is doing with the vehicle.

Yes Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill was clearly the Home Office tea-boys first attempt at drafting legislation.

Clearly the author(s) believe that without giving the Private Parking Industry statute powers they can still invoke a system akin to Council PCNs.
i.e .for a statutory Council PCN the owner of the vehicle is liable for the penalty regardless of who actually committed the contravention.

Now that could work for private parking if these companies had any power to impose penalties ..but they don't.
Furthermore they are desparately keen to have us believe that these Parking Charges are NOT penalties.
Whilst the charges are deemed to be contractual (which they must be as they have no statutory basis) then it is indeed somewhat difficult to imagine how a court could hold a third party liable for breaching a contract they did not enter into.
Trespass is even more absurd , can you really trespass upon someones property without even being there ???

shortchanged_2

Perhaps there are some VI's here. You never know, Perky or some other PPC stooge may have a relative working in the DoT.

Either that or the DoT person involved in this is also a director of a PPC.

Alexis27

The Bill is drafted as the keeper being 'liable'.

This liability would only apply in the real world if a county court claim was made, and the judge found in the PPC's favour.

But how can the judge find in the PPC's favour in the first place when the keeper wasn't the driver?

What I'm saying is that automatic liability wouldn't apply, because there wouldn't be anything to be liable for in the first place.

"I can't be liable because I wasn't there"
"The Freedoms Act states that you are liable for the charge"
"I can only be liable for an enforceable charge. How can the charge be enforceable if I wasn't there and no contractual offer was made to me. The charge can only be enforceable through the law of contract, which it isn't anyway, but the same law does not allow the charge to be enforceable against a third person in the first place."

The TMA 2004 only makes the owner liable for a penalty because it confers the power of issuing penalties to local authorities. The Freedoms Bill does not, so liability cannot arise from something that by its very nature, doesn't make the original charge enforceable - the same point of law cannot impose two opposite principles simultaneously.

Making a claim in contract yet making a third person liable under the same law as the original claim is a mutually exclusive concept.

There are of course exceptions - agent and principle cases, but the relationship there is not the same as with car ownership.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Sirdan

Alexis27 wrote: »

The Bill is drafted as the keeper being 'liable'.

This liability would only apply in the real world if a county court claim was made, and the judge found in the PPC's favour.

But how can the judge find in the PPC's favour in the first place when the keeper wasn't the driver?

What I'm saying is that automatic liability wouldn't apply, because there wouldn't be anything to be liable for in the first place.

"I can't be liable because I wasn't there"
"The Freedoms Act states that you are liable for the charge"
"I can only be liable for an enforceable charge. How can the charge be enforceable if I wasn't there and no contractual offer was made to me. The charge can only be enforceable through the law of contract, which it isn't anyway, but the same law does not allow the charge to be enforceable against a third person in the first place."

The TMA 2004 only makes the owner liable for a penalty because it confers the power of issuing penalties to local authorities. The Freedoms Bill does not, so liability cannot arise from something that by its very nature, doesn't make the original charge enforceable - the same point of law cannot impose two opposite principles simultaneously.

Making a claim in contract yet making a third person liable under the same law as the original claim is a mutually exclusive concept.

There are of course exceptions - agent and principle cases, but the relationship there is not the same as with car ownership.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Yes,that's what I said !:D

Sirdan

NevMetson wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate, well you can in criminal law (courtesy of the Aiders and Abettors Act 1861)

I remain to be convinced,surely a defendant could only be guilty of aiding or abetting said offence not the actual offence itself, granted that the sanction imposed by a court may be similar.
Similar to a speeding`case where the owner will not identify a driver they can be guilty of a S172 RTA offence but if they were not the driver they still can't be guilty of the speeding.

Don't suppose it matters that much as I was referring to the civil tort of trespass anyway.

HO87

I'm convinced that the relevant wording was originally supplied by the BPA. After all, it would fit with the whole PPC business model which is predicated on bluff and bluster. I'm rapidly coming to conclusion that the average PPC just wants to be able to quote statute law to the effect that the RK is liable in order that it can be used as just another threat. It will be more effective, I'm sure, that trying to twist CPR 31.16/31.17 or threatening to obtain an NPO and will certainly boost the rate of return from 60% (which is hardly shabby in itself).

That being said I also have suspicions that there is a BPA strategy behind the current spate of court cases (although I don't think that Mr Haswell would willingly lose a case deliberately - perhaps that would explain what was interpreted as "nerves" during his most recent outing?) perhaps with a view to a second tranche of legislation?

Alexis27

The BPA is in the awkward position of not being able to admit the charges are unenforceable for the most part.

They can never get everything they want, so they are going for the next best thing - an increase in revenue by beefing up the threatening letters.

Which is fine by me. The uneducated will still pay as they've always done. The educated still won't.

The issue isn't threatening letters - the issue is getting people to use Google. And far more people do that now than five years ago.

Still, clamping is going which is probably the main thing.