Jeremy Vine - Talking about Didcot & PPC's this lunch time!

Inflatable_Armadillo

Jeremy Vine is doing a piece on the issues with reduced bay sizes at Didcot this lunch time (Thursday 10th November) on BBC Radio 2. I have called in and said that Jeremy should stop calling them 'fines' and call them what they are... speculative invoices! Not sure if they will call me back but they said they would pass my comments on to the studio.

If anyone wants to call in, the number is 0500 288291.

IA

SodG24

Email sent !

Ezmondino

this was also on the bbci button (text) last night on the south news section. All the way through the article they used the word fine. :huh:

Inflatable_Armadillo

Well, it looks like they are missing the real issue with PPC's, which is a shame!

Martin Lewis even RT this from me - "U r correct RT @JonnyStone: @MartinSLewis @theJeremyVine 's calls them parking 'fines' & I called to say they're just invoices

They are still banging on about the issue of the size of spaces and not the issue of PPC issuing fake fines!

SodG24

So no mention at all that they invoices rather than fines - time to bombard http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

SodG24

Complaint sent :

"The show highlighted a number of people getting "fines" in a car park in Didcot managed by a private parking company. The show included an interview from a representative of the British Parking Association ( BPA ).

The discussion raises a number of serious issues that were not made clear to the listening public :

1. No private company can issue a "fine". These are invoices that the person in receipt of the invoice can refuse to pay. A small claims court would rule on the validity of the invoice.

2. They are not FINES - they are INVOICES. Fines implies people HAVE to pay them as they are official and hold the same weight as fines from the police or local council.

3. The BPA holds no legal capacity. They are a trade association funded by the Private Parking Companies. The show implied they were an independant body which they are not. They represent their members and are not a consumer protection body.

Quite frankly the show lacked information and was biased towards the unregulated private parking industry. "

bobrey

Whilst at present it can be argued that calling parking charges "fines" is incorrect we all need to be aware of the likely effect of the draft "Protection of Freedom Bill" and in particular clause 56 of Shedule 4 therein. If this is passed ,as seems likely, this will introduce measures which will make registered owners liable under law for any parking charges which parking management companies issue. To object to this measure, lobbied by the British Parking Association, sign up to e-petition 6342 at the Direct Gov website. The draft bill has received its second reading in the House of Lords this week.
Under this proposed legislation the BPA will have legal powers to get details direct from DVLA and pursue vehicle owners for "parking charges"ie fines by any other term.

esmerobbo

The BPA approved operators already have the power to obtain the keepers details from the DVLA as long as they have £2.50! The legislation may give them the power to make a claim against the keeper, but it wont make them anymore enforceable. In fact it will make it weaker! [against the keeper]

Trebor16

bobrey wrote: »

Whilst at present it can be argued that calling parking charges "fines" is incorrect we all need to be aware of the likely effect of the draft "Protection of Freedom Bill" and in particular clause 56 of Shedule 4 therein. If this is passed ,as seems likely, this will introduce measures which will make registered owners liable under law for any parking charges which parking management companies issue. To object to this measure, lobbied by the British Parking Association, sign up to e-petition 6342 at the Direct Gov website. The draft bill has received its second reading in the House of Lords this week.
Under this proposed legislation the BPA will have legal powers to get details direct from DVLA and pursue vehicle owners for "parking charges"ie fines by any other term.

Just signed the petition.

Sirdan

"If this is passed ,as seems likely, this will introduce measures which will make registered owners liable under law for any parking charges which parking management companies issue. "

Not quite so simple.

The legislation makes the keeper liable to be claimed against in a County Court , if the driver remains unidentified.

That is not a strict liability , it is still subject to all the pitfalls which cause PPCs to lose at County Court now.

How a district judge can be expected to rule that a third party is liable for a contract they did not enter into is yet to be resolved.
Remember the "enforcing law" for these charges will still be contract law or the tort of trespass.
Which leads to the question , can a court really hold a keeper liable for a trespass committed by another person ..if the keeper is not the driver.

It certainly does not make these speculative invoices legitimate "fines" in any way whatsoever.

HO87

bobrey wrote: »

Whilst at present it can be argued that calling parking charges "fines" is incorrect we all need to be aware of the likely effect of the draft "Protection of Freedom Bill" and in particular clause 56 of Shedule 4 therein. If this is passed ,as seems likely, this will introduce measures which will make registered owners liable under law for any parking charges which parking management companies issue. To object to this measure, lobbied by the British Parking Association, sign up to e-petition 6342 at the Direct Gov website. The draft bill has received its second reading in the House of Lords this week.
Under this proposed legislation the BPA will have legal powers to get details direct from DVLA and pursue vehicle owners for "parking charges"ie fines by any other term.

With respect bobrey you are wrong. Clause 56 does not confer any additional power to the BPA that its members do not already enjoy as a consequence of the DVLA's interpretation of reg.27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration & Licensing) Regulations 2002.

To suggest that this Bill will confer such a power will do nothing more than to do the BPA's job for them by handing them a textbook PR win. They will be able to argue, quite properly, that the "anti campaign" is spreading false claims as to the extent of the nascent Act. If you haven't actually read Clause 56, or more accurately Schedule 4 to the Bill, please do not pontificate on its contents.

Schedule 4 may be read here