Home Office Keeper Liability Impact Assessment

Sirdan

Alexis27 wrote: »

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.

Indeed as they say in Parliament , I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous post

The reality is that when discussed in parliament this is what was said

"the Government state in the impact assessment that they expect 74% of penalty tickets to be paid up front at the time the ticket is issued, rising to 82% when keeper liability is added in."

So we can see that so called "keeper liability" is not about a strict liability ..it is all about allowing the BPA to lawfully extend it's threatening and intimidating business model to keepers as well as drivers !!

HO87

Sirdan wrote: »

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.

Just to be clear the Act (s.8 - the only section not repealed by the Criminal Law 1977) allows aiders and abettors (together with counsellors or procurors) to be dealt with as principals. Therefore, extending the analogy above, someone who aids and abets a burglary, for example, by standing at a street corner to warn of the approach of the police may be charged with the substantive offence notwithstanding that he himself has not trespassed (a necessary element of the substantive offence).

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

Just to be clear the Act (s.8 - the only section not repealed by the Criminal Law 1977) allows aiders and abettors (together with counsellors or procurors) to be dealt with as principals. Therefore, extending the analogy above, someone who aids and abets a burglary, for example, by standing at a street corner to warn of the approach of the police may be charged with the substantive offence notwithstanding that he himself has not trespassed (a necessary element of the substantive offence).

Presumably for the offence to be proven there has to be mens rea and the defendant has to be proven to have taken some positive action to assist rather than failing to take action to prevent.

So hypothetically speaking this would not apply to a keeper allowing a vehicle to be used by another who subsequently trespasses .....that would be akin to a RFD selling a shotgun to a licensed holder who then murders someone being guilty of murder by "aiding and abetting ".

Or indeed a keeper being guilty of speeding committed by another driver simply by virtue of allowing use of the vehicle.

Ooops starting to digress ..sorry

HO87

Sirdan wrote: »

Presumably for the offence to be proven there has to be mens rea and the defendant has to be proven to have taken some positive action to assist rather than failing to take action to prevent.

So hypothetically speaking this would not apply to a keeper allowing a vehicle to be used by another who subsequently trespasses .....that would be akin to a RFD selling a shotgun to a licensed holder who then murders someone being guilty of murder by "aiding and abetting ".

Or indeed a keeper being guilty of speeding committed by another driver simply by virtue of allowing use of the vehicle.

Ooops starting to digress ..sorry

The Aiders & Abettors Act applies only to indictable offences and s.44 of the Magistrates Court Act applies to summary matters. To my knowledge there is no strict civil equivalent as any action to assist a tort is likely to amount to the same tort in itself though that is something of a gross generalisation.

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

The Aiders & Abettors Act applies only to indictable offences and s.44 of the Magistrates Court Act applies to summary matters. To my knowledge there is no strict civil equivalent as any action to assist a tort is likely to amount to the same tort in itself though that is something of a gross generalisation.

So using those analogies if one is not guilty of an offence of "aiding and abetting" merely by lawfully and without knowledge of the other's intent providing use of an item which is subsequently (mis) used to commit an offence, then it seems the same reasoning would apply to a civil tort.

So we come full circle back to the original contention that a keeper could not be held liable for a trespass committed by a third party using the keeper's vehicle.

Great stuff this Schedule 4, as has been asserted many times now it really does appear to change nothing except that the "industry" can say (without misleading) in their letters that the keeper may be liable to County Court proceedings if the driver is not identified.

The prospect of success for the claimant in those proceedings if the keeper genuinely is not the driver seems as unlikely or indeed even less likely than at present.

AlexisV

If a court claim occurred and the judge found in the PPC's favour on the basis of S4, an appeal to a circuit judge would be wise.

Sirdan

AlexisV wrote: »

If a court claim occurred and the judge found in the PPC's favour on the basis of S4, an appeal to a circuit judge would be wise.

Indeed but sadly the first "test" case once this comes in is bound to be :-

"Perky vs Mr Stooge Keeper". So no appeal there !

robredz

Sirdan wrote: »

Indeed but sadly the first "test" case once this comes in is bound to be :-

"Perky vs Mr Stooge Keeper". So no appeal there !

Perky must be rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of another kicking by a judge.

Incidentally I have been a bit busy the last week so have been away, i will scan and post that response to my letter to MP by the Minister. unfortunately he appears to buy in completely to the BPA guff and drivel,

peter_the_piper

I'm a bit confused about the "Appeal section" at the top of page 20.
Does your proposal create a new right of appeal or route to judicial review? If so how will these be handled(ie by courts or Tribunals)
answer No.

I thought the BPA was supposed to be setting up an Independent tribunal.

AlexisV

BPA and 'independent' don't go in the same sentence.