Keeper Liability: Easy to Defeat

fivegoldstars

Would this new legislation work retrospectively, or only for invoices issued after the change?

ripped_off_driver

fivegoldstars wrote: »

Would this new legislation work retrospectively, or only for invoices issued after the change?

No, this provision will only take effect after the "independent" appeal forum is in place. Probably not until late autumn at the earliest.

fivegoldstars

Worth being aware of, because I'd be willing to bet that letters quoting new legislation would be mass mailed to the holders of any unpaid invoices.

taffy056

That is when the sticky with the letters need to be updated.

give_them_FA

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

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.

If only. Bear in mind the success that PPCs have with the present mish-mash of a system. By the time they have reworded their cunning letters they will be in an even stronger position to bullsh*t the unwary than they are now.

Their gameplan is based upon the ignorance of the average driver. This is how they get millions out of people without, in the vast majority of cases, having the least intention to take anything to court.

That situation, I am sorry to say, will not change anytime soon. We can see that if drivers were properly informed, the new law would be a waste of time.
But we are the wise ones already!

The roads still teem with people who fall for this nonsense.

Kite2010

"sorry but due to the data protection laws, I am unable to disclose the name of the driver on that day without the required data access fee of £10"

Or

"I do not keep records of everybody whom drives my car as it's a shared vehicle, here is a list of names & addresses of everybody who uses it *fake names & addresses*"

Or

"The driver was a Mr H Wales of number 1, SW1A 1AA"

AltheHibby

"I have no legal authority to enter any contracts, or provide any details for any contract that any driver of my car may have entered in to, and may only disclose their details when required to by a statutory body"

taffy056

The driver at the time and myself are under the age of 18

love & kisses

AltheHibby

Taffy,

Is that "love and kisses" to the PPC, or a description of what the under 18s were up to?!?!?

steve1500

Kite2010 wrote: »

"sorry but due to the data protection laws, I am unable to disclose the name of the driver on that day without the required data access fee of £10"

Sorry to pull you up on this but the correct answer should be

I have not notified the Information Commissioner that I am processing another persons information. Failure to notify the IC can lead to a FINE of upt o £5000.00

If you forward me £35 ( fee required by the IC) I will notify the IC that I am processing personal information

I will then consider your request and any charges that may apply