New freedom of bill act making PPC tickets legally backed?

TrickyWicky

True..

I think the greatest threat is from them claiming they've put a PCN on the windscreen, having a photo of it there (and of course the PCN then vanishes) and then once unpaid the charge increases. Once they have RK liability this could get pretty nasty.

No great left in the former Great britain

SodG24

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Well if you intend to park legitimately then why are you scared?

Err .... because PPCs are con artists. Both the invoices I have received are DESPITE the driver believing they parking legitimately !

I'll give you one guess which bunch of scammers I got them from !!!!!

trisontana

TrickyWicky wrote: »

True..

I think the greatest threat is from them claiming they've put a PCN on the windscreen, having a photo of it there (and of course the PCN then vanishes) and then once unpaid the charge increases. Once they have RK liability this could get pretty nasty.

No great left in the former Great britain

I ask again - why your obsession with "RK liability" when we have told you time after time that it won't affect anything.

peter_the_piper

They have yet to work out just how to make the RK Liability stick. It can't be a statutory way cos the police don't want to know, it will be difficult to make it a civil sanction because (among other things) one person cannot be liable for the actions of another. So we are still back where we started.

SodG24

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Once they have RK liability this could get pretty nasty.

Why ? It's no different to now other than they have an identified individual to harass.

The_Slithy_Tove

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Once they have RK liability this could get pretty nasty.

Wrong (for the umpteenth time in the last day or so)!! You have consistently failed to explain why you think the RK part of the Freedom Bill will make any difference to the PPCs ability to pursue those who ignore/refuse to pay the bogus PCNs.

You are a PPC troll, and I claim my £5 (actually, why don't I send you an invoice for it, made out to look like a scary parking ticket?)

shabba19

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Wrong (for the umpteenth time in the last day or so)!! You have consistently failed to explain why you think the RK part of the Freedom Bill will make any difference to the PPCs ability to pursue those who ignore/refuse to pay the bogus PCNs.

You are a PPC troll, and I claim my £5 (actually, why don't I send you an invoice for it, made out to look like a scary parking ticket?)

I cant speak for the other person, but im guessing its because normally they have to prove who was driving at the time to get you to pay, but now it seems they dont need to, the RK will have to pay unless they prove it wasnt them driving at the time. So the burden of proof is no longer on the crooks, but the RK.

trisontana

shabba19 wrote: »

I cant speak for the other person, but im guessing its because normally they have to prove who was driving at the time to get you to pay, but now it seems they dont need to, the RK will have to pay unless they prove it wasnt them driving at the time. So the burden of proof is no longer on the crooks, but the RK.

But the RK can still ignore the PPC and wait for the very remote possibility that it will go to court. Even then the PPC/landowner will have to prove that it's a true loss they are trying to claim for, and that all the signage was correct and easily visible. On top of that it will cost money for the PPC to pursue the case. Don't forget that the defendant can ask for the case to be heard in their local court, so travelling time and money for the PPC or their legal rep plus the cost of initiating the case. This is why most PPCs don't do court. That won't change under the new act.

SodG24

shabba19 wrote: »

I cant speak for the other person, but im guessing its because normally they have to prove who was driving at the time to get you to pay, but now it seems they dont need to, the RK will have to pay unless they prove it wasnt them driving at the time. So the burden of proof is no longer on the crooks, but the RK.

Oh my God !!!!

So the PPC have jumped the first hurdle - ohhh scary !

How do you think they will get round contract law and prove the RK has broken a contract they haven't entered into ? More so how do you think the PPC will prove a loss more than a handful of pounds ?

So they have the RK name - big deal !

He's a mole and is trying to divide an conquer - ignore him.

Sirdan

SodG24 wrote: »

Oh my God !!!!

So the PPC have jumped the first hurdle - ohhh scary !

How do you think they will get round contract law and prove the RK has broken a contract they haven't entered into ? More so how do you think the PPC will prove a loss more than a handful of pounds ?

So they have the RK name - big deal !

He's a mole and is trying to divide an conquer - ignore him.

Yes it's very obvious ..still fun to indulge for a while ..:D