No clamping, what next, is it worse?

Sirdan

TrickyWicky wrote: »

It won't be a contractual issue any longer. It won't be a criminal or civil issue either so it will probably become a tort.

The bill doesn't actually even mention anything about any independent adjudication either. If you want to read it then search for "Protection of Freedoms Bill" and scroll down to Schedule 4: Recovery of unpaid parking charges

Sorry I can't post links.

Sorry but I wholly disagree where the land is provided as a car park it is by virtue of contract.
As such the PPC can only issue proceedings on the basis of breach of contract or if the parking is wholly outwith the contract it could possibly be trespass.
(As an aside is the tort of trespass not a civil issue ? If not what is it ?)

Either way only a driver could have entered into any contract and only the driver could commit a trespass ...which makes "keeper liability" in Schedule 4 a whole heap of nothing ! :-)

As for adjudication the bill doesn't include it but parliament are clear that Schedule 4 will not take effect until such time as an independent adjudication panel exists ...however that's pretty irrelevant too as we already have the County Court as an adjudication method !

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Honestly have no clue what you are on about or why you started this thread. But if there is an article at any point maybe that will make more sense...or maybe it won't if you can't say who you are.

Dunno what you mean by 'so many people would want to appeal'. I wouldn't; lots of people wouldn't be so stupid as to take a fake PCN from a private company seriously.

The whole point being it would no longer be "fake".

[Deleted User]

Sirdan wrote: »

Sorry but I wholly disagree where the land is provided as a car park it is by virtue of contract.
As such the PPC can only issue proceedings on the basis of breach of contract or if the parking is wholly outwith the contract it could possibly be trespass.
(As an aside is the tort of trespass not a civil issue ? If not what is it ?)

Either way only a driver could have entered into any contract and only the driver could commit a trespass ...which makes "keeper liability" in Schedule 4 a whole heap of nothing ! :-)

As for adjudication the bill doesn't include it but parliament are clear that Schedule 4 will not take effect until such time as an independent adjudication panel exists ...however that's pretty irrelevant too as we already have the County Court as an adjudication method !

Not true as we will be starting the adjudication service very shortly! It will be independant.

[Deleted User]

peter_the_piper wrote: »

So, AssJ, this "independent" adjudication, who is paying for it? Last time in the Lords it was BPA or industry were to pay. Whereas the BPA said it won't start until the government would pay and keeper liability would also depend on the adjudication being in place. Has the impasse been broken? To make it as "fair" as the council one, will you be publishing all terms and conditions online? Will all the terms be common throughout England? Will all signs be in the same fonts/typeface size as councils? If so link please to where this is published, if not why not.

The BPA Approved Operators will pay, there will be no cost to the public or appellant.

[Deleted User]

Oh and I really want to ask ptp what do you do and why are you so in the know. Do you work in the industry or do you run a service that offers appeals?

And for the others that jump on me around here, I am being genuine!.

Sirdan

assj wrote: »

Not true as we will be starting the adjudication service very shortly! It will be independant.

Wholly true, if (when) keepers continue to ignore these invoices the only recourse for the "industry" will be to claim in the County Court.

You can't make someone appeal and you can't make them pay if they don't !

As this remains a contract/ tort civil matter even if the appeal were to be lost the only recourse would be the County Court if the keeper did not pay.
Remember as the statute actually makes no provision(s) for this "appeals service" then it doesn't give it any enforcing jurisdiction either ..so what is the point of it ....do you imagine that if an appeal is lost then a County Court would be bound to uphold that decision ...probably ..but there again not certain...

There is nothing in the statute that will require the keeper to pay if they choose to not appeal.

PS I'm sure you meant "independent". lol

Sirdan

assj wrote: »

The whole point being it would no longer be "fake".

Yes it would , PPC invoices will remain just that they have no statutory basis.
The law has not changed nor will it when this Schedule 4 come into force : Private companies can not penalize private individuals.

The invoices remain subject to contract law or tort of tresspass regardless of who the PPc may claim against ..and we know the track record there don't we ?;)

trisontana

assj wrote: »

Not true as we will be starting the adjudication service very shortly! It will be independant.

This shows that assj is a PPC troll

vax2002

The people will beat you and your freedoms bill and here is why.
Because you are a bunch of greedy stealing thieving lying scum !
You wont be able to keep your hands out of the cookie jar and armed with the new bill courtesy of your bent mates in parliament you will over egg the cake, people will get sick of it and stop using car parks that employ thieving scum like you.
The businesses will start loosing money as people will not risk trusting themselves to crooks, some will chuck you out and see customers flock back, everyone will follow suit and you will be out on your backsides.

peter_the_piper

assj wrote: »

The BPA Approved Operators will pay, there will be no cost to the public or appellant.

Thats not what they say.

I can forsee thousands and thousands of appeals each day, 99% will be rejected and nothing will have been gained. The cost to the operators will be enormous that's why they have said that they will only put it in place when the government pays. I'm surprised that you do not realise this.