Does New Law (May 2012) Make Registered Keeper Liable to Parking Charges?

Jay*_2

I had posted a thread (Yesterday) about my dealings with Parking Eye. I was doing some research and I came across a recent piece of government legislation: Protection of Freedoms Bill, specifically Clause 56 and schedule 4.
From the website, "Stop Clause 56":
"Yes, Schedule 4 allows the parking operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges, whether or not the keeper was the driver at the time the charge was incurred.
In other words, they can hold the registered keeper responsible for a breach of the parking contract - a contract in which they, as a separate legal entity, played no part!
Schedule 4 also requires parking operators to meet certain conditions before they can pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle for any unpaid charges. BUT it places no burden of proof on the parking operator to demonstrate that these conditions have been met, nor does it provide a system of dispute resolution for vehicle keepers pursued for payment where these conditions are not met."
I'm hoping this doesn't apply here in Scotland. Sorry to be the bearer of possibly ill news......

Jay*_2

Been informed that this becomes law in oct 2012

The_Slithy_Tove

Whether it applies in Scotland or not, it really doesn't make a great deal of difference.

For a start, this goes right up against the principle of privity, i.e. that a third party cannot be held to a contract he had no part it. This has yet to be tested in court, and it's not likely to happen soon (or even soon after the law comes in later in the year).

Then there's the recent ruling that a PPC cannot make contracts, and thus levy its charges, on a car park it simply manages, rather than owns.

And all this is just icing on the cake of the meaningless so-called contracts in the first place. The Parking Charges are still unlawful penalties, and thus unenforceable.

So, one very tiny hurdle cleared out of the way of the PPCs. Many, many HUGE hurdles still in their way.

Oh, and no-one is expecting the independent (yeah, right) appeals process to happen any time soon, without which the whole thing is moot.

In short, don't worry, the PPCs will attempt to use the new legislation as a way to browbeat people who receove their ever-more-hysterical letters, but that's about it. They will still be completely ignorable.

ripped_off_driver

This has been extensively discussed on here previously. The general consensus is that it will be business as usual post this "keeper liability" coming in as the advice will still be to ignore and the PPC will still have to enforce in court. Therefore all the old obstacles to court enforcement, such as the invoice being an unlawful penalty, no contract being formed and particularly the recent VCS case ruling practically all PPC tickets unenforcable, will apply. The measure is only a right to claim against the keeper if the driver is not known, it is not legitimising PPC invoices in any way.

The keeper liability measure will only come in when an "independent" appeals mechansism run by the BPA is set up. Naturally no-one expects such a service to be independent. However it will allow motorists another avenue if they so choose and then the PPC will not be able to enforce anyway unless they go to court. Overall very little will change, despite the spin that will be evident from the BPA and assorted PPC scammers.

Jay*_2

Thanks for the replies.
The question would be how did this awful piece of bad legislation become law???

The_Slithy_Tove

Jay* wrote: »

The question would be how did this awful piece of bad legislation become law???

Extensive lobbying by the BPA, resulting in ignorant and misinformed MPs, who thought they were doing a Good Thing.

Oh yes, and there's the fact that the BPA repeatedly lied through their teeth as part of that lobbying.

give_them_FA

Basically, the Government were dumb enough think that the BPA were some type of official body, rather than the Scammers' Guild which they actually are. They were then credulous enough to accept a series of lies from the BPA, instead of doing their own research on the matter.

What it will do is to make it rather easier for the scammers to lever payment out of those who would probably have been stupid enough to have paid anyway; which, sadly, is the majority.

Other than perhaps not having to prove the identity of the driver, it will make very little difference to their ability to enforce via court; they still face all the other difficulties which stem from the fact that their trade has no foundation in law.

And they are going to have problems setting up a demonstrably independent appeal system. I did see talk of their trying to use the existing systems that deal with Council PCNs. Obviously this would be acceptable but I rather feel the service would be swamped by appeals and would create long delays. And of course the BPA has lied about the numbers likely to appeal.

All in all, I am wondering if this will be of any benefit to them at all. And with the outlawing of clamping and towing possibly the motorist may benefit.

It appears that if the keeper nominates a driver, and that party then ignores the PPC, the issue will not come back to the keeper so they are still stymied.

peter_the_piper

If the ppc does not have the right to make a contract (agent for landowner only,) then how can an independent adjudicator work?
Adj:- Mr RK did you park there
RK:- Yes
Adj:- Mr PPC can you show me the contract which shows you have the rights to the land and can form contract?
PPC:- Err No
Adj:- Oh Dear, Appeal allowed.

Coupon-mad

Here's a lot of links from last year, e-petitions, the lot. PEOPLE TRIED HARD!:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3491311

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/44591438#Comment_44591438

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/46795629#Comment_46795629

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59039&mode=threaded&pid=593594

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/protection/memo/pf31.htm

http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?13605-Protection-of-Freedoms-Bill-Clause-56

http://www.stopclause56.org.uk/

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:nBCIqoz458gJ:www.citizensadvice.org.uk/protection_of_freedoms_bill_briefing_-_february_2011.pdf+protection+of+freedoms+bill+clause+56&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShn2zwwAkMtwiPYoLTgfb3d1gDutz_1SD6erwSWYpHTwpRNtwcRQZdWZ5a4PPWvnjpKjYkgIYo2RwzrAhL3i_ozKGXVoeAh4tBq115GZQdy2eQ6y-11F0iY1v5o2iCeXjUhFeqH&sig=AHIEtbSOxINRokABm5IUiJX0bLvrtFXTKg

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Community/Forum-Landing/Forum-Categories/Topic/?topic-id=10561

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=92400

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=89798

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?317926-Private-Parking-Companies-Protection-of-Freedoms-Bill-Clause-56

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/6342


On here, many of us wrote to our MPs and the Transport Minister the Freedoms Committee themelves.

Nothing changed and it's going to happen in October. Absolutely SHOCKING!

:eek::eek::eek:

peter_the_piper

Is it so bad?
PPC can't do court if they don't "own" the land
Adjudicator can't adjudicate unless ppc owns the land.
NPO does not apply
Cameras are useless unless put in by owner.
unless I have misunderstood it all.

mikey72

I'll come back in again. Mainly as I think, sometimes, parking enforcement is needed, which is why the law was changed. Maybe not in the right way, but what other ideas would you have, apart from barrier control? We've a local Lidl. I shop there, but quite often fail to find any space at all, and leave. The reason I can't park, is because it's one of the few carparks in the town, that isn't council owned, and pay and display. So it gets parked up in the morning, with a mixture mainly of workers in the town, and shoppers at other stores who walk a couple of minutes to the high street throughout the day. Lidl can't do anything about it, as they get told the tickets aren't enforceable, we can stay all day, and it's not an option to clamp, because of a covenant in the ground they built on. (No barrier allowed either.) There's no point Lidl shoppers parking elsewhere, as then you have to carry the shopping back. It's the same cars, day in day out mainly, who "know their rights", so any suggestions on how we can get in to park to shop?