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

peter_the_piper

I did ask ,in a convoluted way, on this thread but it got lost before I had an answer.

How can the Independent appeals system work if the ppc has not been given the land rights by the landowner. If the ppc does not have the right to issue charges and the legislation says the appeal is between the ppc and RK, can the landowner go to the same adjudicator? If not then the adjudicator is a total waste of time and money.
Have I understood this correctly?

give_them_FA

As the situation is at present, you are correct. The only companies that could defend their position are the ones who actually own car parks, such as NCP.

This issue is one I think they will be trying to find a way around.

I am wondering if the PPCs will actually gain anything from the deal they did with the Government. RK liability if correctly dealt with will be illusory for them if they don't have the ability to go to Court.

But against that, they will be dreading having an unbiased appeal system. Adjudicators like those at Council appeals would kick out a goodly proportion of their tickets; and I can see the system getting log-jammed.

peter_the_piper

But if they don't have title to the land, they cannot issue tickets (or the tickets are invalid)and therefore they cannot take it to adjudication, unless they do something to their contracts.

give_them_FA

Yes, they will have to have new contracts. Whether the landowner is going to be happy giving them the rights they will need to issue tickets is a moot point.

The idiots should just have stuck to obtaining money by bullsh*t instead of taking anyone to court. They have given themselves both barrels in the foot.

AlexisV

The requirement for a 'kosher' landowner contract draws comparison with the requirement that councils must submit a Traffic Regulation Order in each case they take to adjudication.

Once/if any law is passed, we may be looking at a situation where sending a letter requiring a copy of the landowner contract becomes the norm.

LincolnshireYokel

give_them_FA wrote: »

As the situation is at present, you are correct. The only companies that could defend their position are the ones who actually own car parks, such as NCP.

This issue is one I think they will be trying to find a way around.

I am wondering if the PPCs will actually gain anything from the deal they did with the Government. RK liability if correctly dealt with will be illusory for them if they don't have the ability to go to Court.

But against that, they will be dreading having an unbiased appeal system. Adjudicators like those at Council appeals would kick out a goodly proportion of their tickets; and I can see the system getting log-jammed.

What about the 'appeals' process? The tricky part is if that process has any legal binding. If you can ignore the ticket, and ignore the appeals process, then its business as usual for ignoring tickets, but what if they make it legally compulsory to 'appeal' or become liable?

AlexisV

In short, it sounds like a farce.

trisontana

As it stands, the appeals findings are not binding on the motorist (but they are on the PPC). So if you want to waste time and money for the PPC all you have to do is go through this appeals process, then if you lose, you say you reject the finding and if the PPC wants their money they will have to take you to court.

It might be a be a bit of a risk, but I imagine that if it ever gets to court, the judge would look at the bigger picture regarding such things as contract law, and not on the narrower points looked at by the appeals adjudicator .

give_them_FA

Yes, exactly. With the appeal result binding on the PPC but not the driver, they are in the worst of both worlds. Presumably the appeal will be decided on the facts of the case, rather than take any consideration as to whether the charge raised is fair or not. Therefore the driver can say, "never mind the facts, the charge is unfair" to a court. And it is accepted- obiter- by the Upper Tier tribunal that the charges constitute a penalty; so they are still stuffed on taking you to court.

Back to relying on the Great British Ignorance to collect money, then.

patman99

Mikey, if Lidl are so concerned about loss of trade from people abusing their car park, then there is nothing stopping them as landowners from taking action themselves rather than using the now-powerless PPC they employ.

Only trouble is, the only thing they can claim for is the damage caused by the use of the parking space and this would involve a lot of number-crunching to come up with a figure of how much money was actually lost by the space not being usable.
This would cost them more in time than they are likely to ever get back.
If they really want to deal with the issue, then there is nothing stopping them dropping a big stack of pallets behind/in front of the offending vehicles. The owners would soon get fed up with having to beg the staff to shift the stack.