Roxburghe, And "Civil Procedures Parts 31.16 and 31.17"

esmerobbo

Its a pity the BPA did not ask them how many times they have issued a claim using CPR.

Surely if its for information only they should be fair and tell people for information purposes only of course that they don't actually take anyone to court!

robredz

The only way that there could be certainty as to who was driving would be if it was compulsory requirement for a driver even in aprivate car to fill in a logsheet giving details of the journey, where parked etc for every trip, like some company vans Can we expect the BPA to demand this measure in the Freedom Bill so they can ask for an actual document?

If this was so they would have problems with breaching Articles 6, 7, and 8 the right to a private life of the Convention on Human Rights

HO87

robredz wrote: »

The only way that there could be certainty as to who was driving would be if it was compulsory requirement for a driver even in aprivate car to fill in a logsheet giving details of the journey, where parked etc for every trip, like some company vans Can we expect the BPA to demand this measure in the Freedom Bill so they can ask for an actual document?

If this was so they would have problems with breaching Articles 6, 7, and 8 the right to a private life of the Convention on Human Rights

Be careful what you wish for!

In the case of O'Halloran & Francis v. United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights in 2007 the court ruled that as motorists we abandon certain rights (such as the absolute right to silence and others under Article 6) when we exercise the privilege of driving on public roads. Given Europe's penchant for regulation and supporting business it would not be too much of a stretch to imagine that they might rule that the obligation to disclose driver details when criminal matters are being contemplated extended also to when a civil case was being considered. :eek:

robredz

HO87 wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for!

In the case of O'Halloran & Francis v. United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights in 2007 the court ruled that as motorists we abandon certain rights (such as the absolute right to silence and others under Article 6) when we exercise the privilege of driving on public roads. Given Europe's penchant for regulation and supporting business it would not be too much of a stretch to imagine that they might rule that the obligation to disclose driver details when criminal matters are being contemplated extended also to when a civil case was being considered. :eek:

Yes that is one issue i am mindful of, as the RTA S172 notice drives a coach and horses through the right to silence, and the right not to incriminate oneself.

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for!

In the case of O'Halloran & Francis v. United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights in 2007 the court ruled that as motorists we abandon certain rights (such as the absolute right to silence and others under Article 6) when we exercise the privilege of driving on public roads. Given Europe's penchant for regulation and supporting business it would not be too much of a stretch to imagine that they might rule that the obligation to disclose driver details when criminal matters are being contemplated extended also to when a civil case was being considered. :eek:

Indeed but this Government have already considered this and rejected it ...their impact assessment says this :-

"
Option 2 [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]– Make it an offence for the registered keeper not to provide information as to the identity of the driver at the time of the parking contravention [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]This option would not allow the vehicle keeper to say they did not know who was driving the vehicle at the time that the parking charge was incurred. This is the system currently in place for enforcement of speeding offences etc. captured on camera, and it is a criminal offence for the keeper of a vehicle not to name the person responsible for the offence. If they do not name the responsible person, liability also transfers to the keeper. This would assist the parking industry to enforce parking charges for breach of contract for parking, where the keeper refuses to name the driver. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]The creation of such an offence would be quite distinct from similar provisions such as those for the enforcement of speeding fines. Those provisions are built upon underlying criminal offences while for parking on private land the contravention in question would simply be a breach of contract. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]8 [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]This would also prove controversial and would be a disproportionate sanction to a parking charge on private property, which is essentially a civil dispute between two private parties. There would also be the question of enforcing such offences - the police would be unlikely to regard enforcement as a priority and it would impose an unwelcome burden on the courts. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Furthermore, it was not clear who should take responsibility for its enforcement. It would not fall within the natural remit of any of the Department of Transport‟s agencies and it was highly unlikely that the police would be able to divert their resources for what is an essentially private purpose. To impose the burden on local authorities would seem inappropriate when they would not stand to benefit in any way from the underlying activity. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]The civil courts currently deal with any disputes with regard to parking on private land would not be able to enforce a criminal offence. It was a real possibility that the Ministry of Justice, through its new civil sanctions gateway, would block the creation of a new offence. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]It was not clear what this would add to a system of keeper liability and that it does not add much in terms of effective enforcement. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]For these reasons the Government does not consider this to be an appropriate area for the criminal law and as such did not pursue the option any further than discussions between government departments. This option was rejected based on the arguments of criminal versus civil law considerations and not any costs/benefits analysis. Therefore, no analysis of costs were conducted therefore a summary and evidence page has not been completed. "[/FONT]
[/FONT]

AlexisV

Would be interested to know the BPA's view on the purpose of the statement.

If it is for 'information only', presumably any letters from Roxburghe are literary and only intended for a spot of pleasant bedtime reading.

AlexisV

HO87 wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for!

In the case of O'Halloran & Francis v. United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights in 2007 the court ruled that as motorists we abandon certain rights (such as the absolute right to silence and others under Article 6) when we exercise the privilege of driving on public roads. Given Europe's penchant for regulation and supporting business it would not be too much of a stretch to imagine that they might rule that the obligation to disclose driver details when criminal matters are being contemplated extended also to when a civil case was being considered. :eek:

Key word being 'public' of course

esmerobbo

Over the last few days I have been searching for a case were Graham White has actually took someone too court for a legitimate debt. Even searching the main debt forums brings up people who receive the threats but never the actual claim!

Oopsadaisy

HO87 wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for!

In the case of O'Halloran & Francis v. United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights in 2007 the court ruled that as motorists we abandon certain rights (such as the absolute right to silence and others under Article 6) when we exercise the privilege of driving on public roads. Given Europe's penchant for regulation and supporting business it would not be too much of a stretch to imagine that they might rule that the obligation to disclose driver details when criminal matters are being contemplated extended also to when a civil case was being considered. :eek:

That's a stretch way way too far [are you by any chance a churnalist on the Daily Mail???].

AlexisV

esmerobbo wrote: »

Over the last few days I have been searching for a case were Graham White has actually took someone too court for a legitimate debt. Even searching the main debt forums brings up people who receive the threats but never the actual claim!

There has been one, one behalf of Elite Parking.

No court bundle submitted.
No show in court on the day.

Says it all.