Keeper Liability: Easy to Defeat

ripped_off_driver

Regular readers will know that on account of the ban on clamping as a sop to the private scamparking industry the Government purported to introduce a mechanism for keeper liability in the Protection of Freedoms Bill making the RK liable where the PPC scammer did not know the name of the driver.

Now that the Bill has been passed, I think it is time to discuss this fine piece of legislation which appears to have more holes than a cheese grater.

Firstly, we are promised an independent appeal mechanism run by the BPA. Now that is wrong with that sentence? The BPA, the trade association for the scamparking industry, is relied on to provide an independent arbitration service, in the way a fox would be contracted to provide security for a henhouse. Nevertheless to test the system it will probably be a good idea to advise all posters to challenge their invoices in the "independent" forum. Even if they fail the fact is that the forum will not have the power to order anyone to pay and the PPC will still have to go to court if it wants its money, which will be a fresh re-hearing of the case.

Secondly, the keeper liability only applies where the PPC does not know the name and address of the driver. There is no sanction for proving incorrect or false information. Thus if one were to reply that John Smith of 1 High St was the driver the PPC would have to pursue that "person". One can see a thriving trade in rude or suggestive names (which will probably all be lost on the numbskull PPCs).

Now I know that nothing fundamental is really about to change and the best advice may still be to ignore but I am sensing opportunities for making serious mischief here. It would be very ironic if the measure which was supposed to make things all better for the scammers actually causes them far more grief.

Comments welcome, even from the many lurking PPC scammers.

peter_the_piper

So, does the requirement of naming the driver mean they have not asked for the address, just the name?

Coupon-mad

peter_the_piper wrote: »

So, does the requirement of naming the driver mean they have not asked for the address, just the name?

It's a good point. We need to check the legislation.

I agree that we should from the start of 'keeper liability' tell all posters to send a certain carefully worded letter to 'use' (block up) the appeals procedure.

The system will never cope as it has been assumed only a small number will 'appeal'. TBH it's worth ALL OF US LOT deliberately collecting fake PCNs in places where we can see the signage is sh!te, thereby adding to the strain on the appeals system as well. Peel Centre meet-up in the Autumn, anyone?

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's a good point. We need to check the legislation. ...

It does say that the RK must provide name and contact details.

Regular listeners to Terry Wogan will have no trouble coming up with suitable names. These include:

Rudolph Hucker
Drew Peacock
Hugh Janus
Norma Snockers
Mike Hunt
Mick Sturbs
Dora Jarr
Hellen Back
Anita Bush
etc.

All of these people live at 43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH16 3BN

ripped_off_driver

peter_the_piper wrote: »

So, does the requirement of naming the driver mean they have not asked for the address, just the name?

The Act says:

"Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4
5 (1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the
requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver
because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."

So as long as the PPC knows the name and address of the "driver" (even if is is completely false and fictitious as there is no sanction for inaccuracy or untruth) there is no way that they can impose liability on the keeper.

A joke piece of legislation overseen by a joke organisation (and no, I do not mean the Government).

Coupon-mad

bargepole wrote: »

It does say that the RK must provide name and contact details.

Contact details is very vague - a random mobile phone number would suffice then...although I see you have posted a link showing it needs 'current address'.

How exactly can a keeper be expected to know the current address of someone if a PPC are chasing a fake PCN from, say, 4 years ago?

Ridiculous legislation.

peter_the_piper

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

The Act says:

"Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4
5 (1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the
requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver
because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."

So as long as the PPC knows the name and address of the "driver" (even if is is completely false and fictitious as there is no sanction for inaccuracy or untruth) there is no way that they can impose liability on the keeper.

A joke piece of legislation overseen by a joke organisation (and no, I do not mean the Government).

Who's going to be first to pay the £2.50 for the hour they missed or that they prevented the ppc getting by parking across 2 bays.

notts_phil

I can see the ppcs letters all changing .....

trisontana

Define "parking charges". Is it the fee you pay to park or the made-up figure dreamed up by the PPC for breaking their "rules". If the latter then that would fall foul of civil law where they can only claim for the actual loss that has been suffered, and not some stupid amount plucked out of the air.

AltheHibby

They are only a creditor if the contract is legal and valid, ie they can prove that a contract was made by two (or more) willing participants who were fully aware of the terms of the contract. Until such times it is a speculative invoice. If full terms and conditions are not available at the time any contract is made then it is bound to fail as one party were unaware of the conditions under which they were expected to agree the contract.

I can't see this making much difference other than a new set of threatening letters as they will still have to prove that a valid contract was made.

A few further thoughts occur. Is there anything in EU law that would prevent them trying to force us to name the potential parties to a contract, and since they can only trace UK registered cars is there not a form of discrimination at play here as they could not, for example, get a German's details from DVLA?

In terms of identifying drivers, those of us with relatives abroad could always name them!!!

taffy056

Isn't there something in the dpa that prevents giving personal details of third parties to these? You in theory ask the driver do you mind me passing on your details to this company , they cite the dpa saying they don't give permission, what to do then ?