Keeper Liability: Easy to Defeat

Robert2009

I hope when they write asking for the parkers details that they include a SAE or else they won't get a reply from me. I'm not spending 60p for a stamp to give them a fake name and address.

I could of course not put a stamp on the envelope.

give_them_FA

I am just wondering whether we could charge them for the information. Everyone else wants £30 to tap on a keyboard.

taffy056

give_them_FA wrote: »

I am just wondering whether we could charge them for the information. Everyone else wants £30 to tap on a keyboard.

That's a good one, think £30 should cover the first letter, any subsequent letters would get a similar charge.

Coupon-mad

give_them_FA wrote: »

I am just wondering whether we could charge them for the information. Everyone else wants £30 to tap on a keyboard.

Now...there's a thought!

There is nothing in the legislation that says the keeper has to provide the driver's details for free!

taffy056

Robert2009 wrote: »

I hope when they write asking for the parkers details that they include a SAE or else they won't get a reply from me. I'm not spending 60p for a stamp to give them a fake name and address.

I could of course not put a stamp on the envelope.

But even if they do provide an sae it doesn't mean you have to use it, I would encourage everyone to post back the letter in a different envelope unstamped

esmerobbo

give_them_FA wrote: »

I am just wondering whether we could charge them for the information. Everyone else wants £30 to tap on a keyboard.

Been there done that, strangely no one ever came back asking for the details with a cheque in payment for my administration charges!

steve1500

What about, that was 4 weeks ago - can't remember, especially when using number plate recognition.

Or wife went to Asda then I went to Asda because she forgot something!!!

give_them_FA

I think the whole point of the new legislation is that "don't remember" isn't an excuse.

However it is an ill thought out piece of nonsense that, if resisted, will probably prove unworkable.

To be fair I think it will up the payment rate a bit; but ultimately the problem with taking it to court will always be the "unlawful charge" aspect and this legislation doesn't address that.

taffy056

Just bury them with appeals and unstamped envelopes, plus admin charges for supplying information

ripped_off_driver

I like the idea of the keeper charging an administration charge (which of course could well approximate to the invoice charged by the PPC) for having to research information as to who was the driver. After all this takes time and time is money.

Combined with naming a fictitious driver with total impunity this appears to drive a coach and horses through the keeper liability provision. Now I know the mechanism was only ever likely to be used as a scammer scare tactic anyway but this would seem to stop it ever being used in anger.

Are you watching BPA? If ever I need someone to come up with an ill thought out and totally ineffective piece of legislation I will know where to look.