War Is Declared: Court Action Against DVLA

ManxRed

It changes it from "hey driver, ignore, ignore, ignore" to "hey RK, ignore, ignore, ignore"

bargepole

rtho782 wrote: »

... So does this mean they don't have to persue the driver anymore once the freedoms bill comes in?

Edit: Reading Clause 56 it seems that there is now a legal basis for enforcing these unsolicited invoices against RKs? I guess this changes "ignore-ignore-ignore" to "pay-pay-pay"?

Clause 56 means that, if the RK doesn't name a driver, the PPC can "pursue" the RK. There is no verification process for this, so if Mr D Cameron of 10 Downing Street SW1 was named as the driver, nothing can be done about it.

Then, there is still the issue of contracts. The VCS v HMRC binding ruling is that PPCs can't issue charges, or even offer parking facilities, unless they own, or have some propietary interest in, the land. So if the PPCs want to try and enforce their charges, they would have to make a court claim, which is now very likely / certain to fail.

So it will still be ignore, and ignore some more.

peter_the_piper

There is supposed to be an Independent Appeals Process coming. This would sort out appeals between a PPC and Driver/RK. If the PPC does not have the right to offer a contract as they don't own the land or have the right to form a contract given them by the owner then what good is an adjudicator when there's nothing to adjudicate.

Interesting times ahead.

ManxRed

I cannot wait to see the outcome of such an appeal, based on 'no contract' and 'unreasonable penalty'.

They MUST in theory uphold the appeal. In which case, we simply advise everyone to appeal based on these points, and all the tickets will be cancelled.

I bet they don't though. And what then?

LincolnshireYokel

peter_the_piper wrote: »

There is supposed to be an Independent Appeals Process coming. This would sort out appeals between a PPC and Driver/RK. If the PPC does not have the right to offer a contract as they don't own the land or have the right to form a contract given them by the owner then what good is an adjudicator when there's nothing to adjudicate.

Interesting times ahead.

But as I understand it, the Appeals process is binding on the PPC but not at all binding on the RK/Driver, so you can appeal and then just ignore them if it doesn't go your way, and they're back to square one.

Its a pointless process, but then its going to be biassed and a sham, so thats ok

rtho782

The more you think the more it seems that these are even more pointless if you are assuming the RK is responsible.

It's bad enough saying that the driver should hunt around for tiny signs and read and understand them completely, and that parking a car there is an equivalent of signing a contract.

Saying that the RK, who possibly didn't park the car there, and possibly has never been there, is liable, is even more insane. How are they supposed to have agreed to terms that are only posted somewhere they have never been? How are they supposed to have indicated agreement to these terms?

Personally I feel that regardless of the posted terms unless they can produce a document I have signed, they have no evidence of my agreement to them.

AlexisV

The term 'appeal' is a misnomer. It implies that a decision in law has been made which is being challenged, whereas it is nothing of the sort.

The correct term should be 'independent adjudication'.

rtho782

Why do we even need an appeals process when the whole thing is baseless. May as well just shred them surely?

Either that, or the appeals process should just throw every case out saying "no contract exists between PPC and victim"

HO87

BP - :T

The average DDJ is going to run a mile from this - and quite properly so. Let's get it aired in the High Court. Pronto.

Standby for bluff and bluster from the Treasury Sols. :D

Game on.

rtho782 wrote: »

Why do we even need an appeals process when the whole thing is baseless. May as well just shred them surely?

Either that, or the appeals process should just throw every case out saying "no contract exists between PPC and victim"

Although the details have yet to be revealed in their entirety common sense dictates that in order to operate efficiently any appeals mechanism can only do so if a number of assumptions are made - including that the PPC business model has a legal basis and by extension that a PPC has sufficient interest at law to offer a contract to park and therefore has a genuine cause of action if such a contract is breached. As we know from a number of cases - including the binding decision in the case of VCS v HMRC - many PPC's lack that legal interest and that is aside from the legality of crypto-penalties and the harassing of alleged debtors.

One could go on. I my opinion the whole "independent appeals process" put forward by the BPA is just another figleaf intended to create a private parking enforcement model that is a simulacrum of the local authority DPE model. Parliament have been taken in by this and the public are likely to be too.

AlexisV

The whole Freedoms Act has 'judicial review' written all over it.