Another UKPC Question....!

blunther

Hello,

UKPC have recently taken over control of parking at my workplace. I have allegedly parked in an 'unmarked bay' today, and as such have recieved a 'parking charge' invoice.

I know full well what to do with it. In fact, it's already in the bin - however, the missus is the registered keeper of the vehicle (she works in the same building as me too and her permit is on the car). She's the type to panic i she gets a reminder for a bill, let alone something mentioning solicitors, debt colectors, court, etc.... Is there any chance a few of you wisened souls can offer some reassurance so I can show her this thread later?

Thanks!

peter_the_piper

Look at the stickies for the ukpc letter chain. Get to the end and they give up. Silly question but what is an unmarked bay? If its a bay then its marked or you would not know its there. If its unmarked then its not a bay. Don't need to answer just musing.

TrickyWicky

You parked the car right and its her car. That means its YOU who technically entered into the contract for parking there so they cannot enforce it on her and likewise she is under no legal obligation to pass on your details.

This will change next year in late 2012 when the Protection of Freedoms bill will give private companies the right to hold the registered keeper liable. As thats not currently possible there is nothing to worry about and when it does come in, it can't be back dated.

Sirdan

TrickyWicky wrote: »

You parked the car right and its her car. That means its YOU who technically entered into the contract for parking there so they cannot enforce it on her and likewise she is under no legal obligation to pass on your details.

This will change next year in late 2012 when the Protection of Freedoms bill will give private companies the right to hold the registered keeper liable. As thats not currently possible there is nothing to worry about and when it does come in, it can't be back dated.

Not so it gives them the right to claim the keeper is liable ..only the County Court can decide if the keeper actually is and you can't be held to a contract you did not enter into !

TrickyWicky

It won't be a contractual issue. It will be a tort and there is a huge difference. If you read the bill then perhaps you'll notice that the new rules will make this an act of trespass and not a contractual one.

Kite2010

As soon as UKPC tickets a car belonging to someone high up on the food-chain (i.e. a director) or the car of someone very important they will soon be kicked out.

In the meanwhile keep on ignoring them, the landowner has lost nothing

Coupon-mad

TrickyWicky wrote: »

It won't be a contractual issue. It will be a tort and there is a huge difference. If you read the bill then perhaps you'll notice that the new rules will make this an act of trespass and not a contractual one.

Pretty sure you are the only one who thinks that 'the new rules will make this an act of trespass and not a contractual one'. Link please to the part in the Freedoms Bill where you think you read that as I cannot find it? We have been looking at that Bill since it was first put forward nearly a year ago.

But - trespass or contract - it's STILL going to be just a civil matter and they would still have to take a person to Small Claims if they wanted to 'enforce' it.

And seeing as most private tickets are issued in car parks where the public are clearly invited to park it will be very difficult for a third party parasite company to convince a judge that they have suffered damages and/or that the motorist 'trespassed'. Especially if they are trying to argue that a registered keeper 'trespassed' when they were in fact elsewhere. That's probably harder to prove than contract!

TrickyWicky

212. Paragraph 1 introduces the scheme as provided for in Schedule 4. The scheme provides that, subject to certain conditions being met, the keeper or the hirer of a vehicle may be made liable for any unpaid parking charge that has arisen as a result of either: the driver of the vehicle having entered into a contract with a landowner and/or his or her agent; or, through the driver of the vehicle committing a trespass or other tort on land where parking is prohibited.

If you've not seen that after looking for a year..

P&D could be seen as one or the other (after all parking is allowed but not if you don't buy a ticket) where as out of bay parking, restricted areas, etc will be prohibited.

I've heard all the defences before unfortunately. While I agree with you morally, legally your argument won't hold water. I remember the age old arguement that tickets couldn't be issued to a car if its wheels weren't on the yellow lines. Of course what people don't realise is that those clever people in Westminster fixed that many years ago just like they're going to stitch this up too.

No point trying to argue it I'm afraid, it makes no difference to me. I'm just saying watch your parking because once this comes in, the PPCs certainly will.

HO87

TrickyWicky wrote: »

212. Paragraph 1 introduces the scheme as provided for in Schedule 4. The scheme provides that, subject to certain conditions being met, the keeper or the hirer of a vehicle may be made liable for any unpaid parking charge that has arisen as a result of either: the driver of the vehicle having entered into a contract with a landowner and/or his or her agent; or, through the driver of the vehicle committing a trespass or other tort on land where parking is prohibited.

If you've not seen that after looking for a year..

P&D could be seen as one or the other (after all parking is allowed but not if you don't buy a ticket) where as out of bay parking, restricted areas, etc will be prohibited.

I've heard all the defences before unfortunately. While I agree with you morally, legally your argument won't hold water. I remember the age old arguement that tickets couldn't be issued to a car if its wheels weren't on the yellow lines. Of course what people don't realise is that those clever people in Westminster fixed that many years ago just like they're going to stitch this up too.

No point trying to argue it I'm afraid, it makes no difference to me. I'm just saying watch your parking because once this comes in, the PPCs certainly will.

Thank you for your useful quotation and comment however whilst there is a provision for the matter to be dealt with as trespass you may have missed the signficance of the qualification that is applied to that viz. "where parking is prohibited". It also specifically sets out an alternative, that of the "driver having entered into a contract". In other words, breach of contract, trespass or other tort may be used.

Whilst you are, of course, entitled to your view Schedule 4 as currently constituted does not in any way, shape or form change the current situation where each of these alternatives are currently open for action as appropriate and to imply the contrary is wrong.

TrickyWicky

What would you call a restricted area, out of bay parking or yellow line parking on private land then?

P&D is without a doubt a different kettle of fish however the end point still remains - the RK is basically in a fix.

HO87

TrickyWicky wrote: »

P&D is without a doubt a different kettle of fish however the end point still remains - the RK is basically in a fix.

The RK is not in a fix to any greater degree than they are. In order to enforce the alleged debt the PPC will still be obliged to issue proceedings and at that point will enter the great unknown. This Bill does not propose to overturn the concept of privity of contract and makes it very clear that the courts will continue to have the final say. That being the case, if a PPC (a majority of the few cases intiated by PPC's are for breach of contract) is unable to prove who was responsible for the breach and the RK is able to show on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver then the PPC will continue to lose in exactly the same way as they currently do.

The only thing that will change - and as far as I can see it is the only reason for the inclusion of this particular clause - is that it will simply provide a legislative cosh, in the short-term and a building block for the imposition of statutory responsibility in the medium to long term. In straightforward terms PPC's will be able to quote the putative legislation and use it to "mug" RK's into paying up.