Keeper Liability: Easy to Defeat

Hadeon

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Scenario.
Driver parks.
RK gets ticket and names driver who could prove they were not there.
RK has fulfilled their obligation.
Driver can't be sued.
What happens then?

give_them_FA wrote: »

Same as happens now. A few letters followed by..... nothing.

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Once the keeper has given a name and current address for service for the driver (with no comeback if the name is wrong, made up or just plain silly) then keeper liability cannot be invoked. The keeper is off the hook and there is no right of appeal for the PPC.

The lack of enforcability of this provision was obvious all through the drafting stage to anyone who took a close look. Except the BPA who wouldn't see it if it jumped up and bit them on the !!!!!.

Not so sure about this one guys; just my thoughts.

In such circumstances, albeit it's a civil matter, the RK could be flirting with 'attempting to pervert the course of justice'.

give_them_FA

It's a thought. But I think that the police would just say it was all a civil matter and not want to get involved- that is what usually happens, isn't it?

And there is nothing in the legislation legitimising legal (court) action, is there?

Hadeon

Personally, I would not risk, & would strongly advise against, providing false details, where the opportunity to provide information is given/enshrined in statute law.

That information does not have to be given, but furnishing false details is a whole different ball-game IMHO.

give_them_FA

It is appallingly poorly drafted. But, whether you could commit the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice by giving inaccurate information in a situation where there was never any obligation to give any information at all, is a very moot point.

And that is just the theory. In practice, provided you didn't supply something like "Donald Duck, EuroDisney, Paris" then it would be pretty much impossible for any PPC to produce evidence that you knowingly gave out false info. After all, the fact that the driver ignores them is not equivalent to him not existing.

Not that I am advocating that; merely weighing the situations up!

A lot of people "in the know" can and will co ck a snook at this law. The BPA are counting on there being, as usual, a lot of people who are NOT in the know.

Hadeon

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I was responding in the main to the scenario ptp posed and the risks that an 'innocent' nominated driver who does not 'ignore' could pose.

Trebor16

It sounds like the best way forward for a registered keeper is to tell the PPC they will provide the information on payment of an admin fee that is exactly the same as what the PPC are demanding on their invoice

Coupon-mad

Trebor16 wrote: »

It sounds like the best way forward for a registered keeper is to tell the PPC they will provide the information on payment of an admin fee that is exactly the same as what the PPC are demanding on their invoice

Yep, that seems to be the way forward.

ripped_off_driver

There is no statutory obligation on the keeper to supply the details of the driver, unlike say s172 RTA. All it will be is a request from a company with no more power to demand the details than you or I (but probably falsely dressed up as a demand nonetheless) and which the recipient is under no obligation to respond to at all, much less to reply to truthfully. IIRC there has to be a judicial proceeding in play before PCoJ can be made out and clearly no-one is advising anyone to lie to a court or anything like that. Therefore worries about naming a party who may not have been the driver amounting to PCoJ are way off the mark. It is a total non-starter.

Clearly there will be some who will want to have a bit of fun and others who will prefer to play safe, even if there is no real comeback. Just as now there are those who ignore and those who prefer to get it off their chest by writing. It cannot hurt to kick around ideas and be ready for when keeper liability goes live because believe me the PPCs will be leading with something like:

"Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 you, the registered keeper, are liable for the debts of the driver committing the following parking contravention ..... "

It is a great shame that the Government protected our freedom to be scammed in this way.

Stephen_Leak

I get confused between the Protection of Harassment Act and the Prevention of Freedoms Act.

Seriously, it makes no difference at the end of the day. Even if the RK tells the PPC who was driving, any contract that might or might not exist is unfair, and PPCs are still a private company, etc.

All that has changed is that the PPC can harass the "right" person, instead of the "wrong" person.

The same happens now, if an RK appeals and says in their letter. "I was driving ...".

esmerobbo

I can imagine the first case.

Judge to PPC why does defendant owe you this money.

PPC: Their car was parked in our car park and it broke the contracted it entered into.

Judge: The car broke the contract?

PPC: No Sir/Madam

Judge: Who did then

PPC: The driver

Judge: Was the defendant driving?

PPC: No Sir?Madam

Judge: Then how did they break a contract they have not seen nor entered into.

PPC: The freedoms bill says they are liable!

Judge: Yes but hundreds of years of contract law says they are not! Goodbye!