Affect of new Freedom Bill

minion101

Hi All,

Have been reading the various threads here with interest and some amusement and been most impressed with the level of advice given by the genuine posters and have a couple of queries I hope you can answer.

First my appologies if this is somewhere else or if this post is in the wrong section, but I have looked about and not seen this addressed.

My queries are as follows and assume that the new 'Freedom Bill', I think I have that right, comes into Law.

1) If Clause 56 comes into force, ie RK become liable, will this affect cases where the 'offence' has occured before the bill becomes law, but not yet run the full gamut?

2) Does the bill in anyway affect the other defenses against these scammers if they do decide to take you to court. ie it is still a breach of contract, if said contract can be proven to have existed, and therefore they can only claim 'loses' and not punative charges?

Thanks in advance.

bargepole

minion101 wrote: »

1) If Clause 56 comes into force, ie RK become liable, will this affect cases where the 'offence' has occured before the bill becomes law, but not yet run the full gamut?

2) Does the bill in anyway affect the other defenses against these scammers if they do decide to take you to court. ie it is still a breach of contract, if said contract can be proven to have existed, and therefore they can only claim 'loses' and not punative charges?

1) Any legislation such as this would not be retrospective, and would only apply to cases after it became law. The final wording of this is still to be passed, but as it stands the RK won't be "liable", it merely permits the PPC to pursue the RK if he doesn't name the driver.

2) This bill does nothing to address the real issue of PPC charges, namely that they are unlawful contractual penalties, and not a genuine pre-estimate of losses. Increasingly, Judges are concurring with that viewpoint, as evidenced by the recent UKCPS fiasco highlighted here a couple of days ago. But, there are exceptions, and it will probably take a decision of the Appeal Court to make a binding ruling.

give_them_FA

minion101 wrote: »

and been most impressed with the level of advice given by the genuine posters

ppeterson1750 obviously hasn't fooled you, then.

minion101

lol no, once a troll always a troll, and trolls are easily recogniseable due to their large ugly heads, full of BS, or so I am led to believe.

Bargepole, thanks for your response, I thought this was the case, but just wanted to check with you more knowledgeable folks :A

esmerobbo

The keeper will be liable for the parking charge if they don't name the driver.
However what is the parking charge? It would have to be the charge for parking not a penalty for non compliance!

Of course the Government has been duped by the BPA, so we may have some interesting times ahead.

robredz

BPA are a cosy club to give a veneer of respectability to a bunch of scammers, so the government are cementing their status as muppets by taking the BPA seriously. The Bill and RK liability is not backed up by any "Criminal" sanction as a speeding ticket and a s.172 RTA 1988 notice to name the driver has if not complied with.

give_them_FA

They are NOT muppets. Someone in the Tory Party is in possession of a very FAT brown envelope for having steered this nonsense through.

However, it does not make much difference in my view, if the charge is unlawful, then they still won't be able to get a court to enforce it.