No clamping, what next, is it worse?

Sirdan

@ TrickWicky

For info

Schedule 4 :-

This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on
relevant land; and
(b)those charges have not been paid in full.


Definition of "relevant obligation" in Schedule 4

"relevant obligation” means—


(a)an obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract;
or
(b)an obligation arising, in any circumstances where there is no
relevant contract, as a result of a trespass or other tort
committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land;"

TrickyWicky

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

There was a film on Film4 tonight about some people having to travel through an alien infected area.

I know how they feel given the rubbish that is being spouted tonight by our new visitors.

Methinks someone in the private parking world of scamdom is a little rattled.

If you're referring to me, I'm not from a private PPC. I got out of that a while back. They play nasty games not just on the public but with their staff too. I'm just trying to help spread the word about this new crap that is coming in. People need to know about it.

You'd be the first to complain if no-one told you wouldn't you when you get a ticket! Here is someone trying to tell you.

Sirdan wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to explain how a tort of trespass is not a civil issue ??

It is a civil issue. As I said earlier in one of these posts, there is a difference between a civil issue and a civil OFFENCE. Please accept that.

Sirdan

TrickyWicky wrote: »

It is a civil issue. As I said earlier in one of these posts, there is a difference between a civil issue and a civil OFFENCE. Please accept that.

What you actually said was this :-

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.

not a civil issue ..but a tort ..you said,as quoted above;

yet now you concede that a tort is a civil issue ?

:T

TrickyWicky

Fair point. That should of read civil offence. I sincerely apologise for confusion caused by my late night postings

Either way the end point is this: We'll be pretty stuffed if this goes through as the RK will be legally responsible. Thats bad for us motorists.

Coupon-mad

We have already said you are not telling us anything new (nor any facts).

We already know about this bill, have been looking at it since around February - and the keeper will NOT be stuffed any more than a driver is now! Nothing will change much.

Sirdan

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Fair point. That should of read civil offence. I sincerely apologise for confusion caused by my late night postings

Either way the end point is this: We'll be pretty stuffed if this goes through as the RK will be legally responsible. Thats bad for us motorists.

I think you may have missed the "elephant in the room" which is the keeper will only be as liable as the driver is now ...no more no less ..all the defences ARE still available and the only enforcement route is through the County Court ...the panel as you pointed out is not legislated for and as such has no enforcement powers what so ever.

PS I think you mean "should have read " not "should of read "

TrickyWicky

You seem to think that the PPCs will not use the legal route. Why would they let go of their income? - They won't. Just like railway parking under byelaw 14, they'll hound the owner into submission.

Granted it will take a while for them to scale up their operations and take on the manpower etc but it will happen.

Coupon-mad

TrickyWicky wrote: »

You seem to think that the PPCs will not use the legal route. Why would they let go of their income? - They won't. Just like railway parking under byelaw 14, they'll hound the owner into submission.

Granted it will take a while for them to scale up their operations and take on the manpower etc but it will happen.[/QUOTE]



No, it won't. PPCs don't do Court now and they still won't, as a rule.

They will enjoy quoting the Freedom Act and telling registered keepers they are 'liable' and that they have a 'real appeals service' - but the fake PCn will still be fake, the keeper no more liable than a driver is now.

TrickyWicky

Well we'll have to agree to differ on that one. I know of at least two PPCs that I've worked for that will be counting down the days until they can take legal action against people and they have the resources too.

esmerobbo

TrickyWicky wrote: »

You seem to think that the PPCs will not use the legal route. Why would they let go of their income? - They won't. Just like railway parking under byelaw 14, they'll hound the owner into submission.

Granted it will take a while for them to scale up their operations and take on the manpower etc but it will happen.

Why do you think the big companies and some of the small companies don't bother using the legal route now? Even if they have the driver details. They should lose in court, but even if they win it will have cost them more to pursue the matter.

Have a look at my Aintree thread they have spent £116,000 chasing a little over £18,000.

Even with keeper liability [whatever the liability will be] these parasites mostly wont do court, they will just use this clause as more intimidation.

Nobody needs all this the answer is simple, if you offer commercial car parking you either have a barrier where you need to pay to exit or you have like in the old days a man in a kiosk taking the cash!
Supermarkets and retail parks can use the same laws of trespass that have been around for years, if they have long term abuse.