new law on PPC on OCt 2013 ?? is it true

lijogrg444

Hi

I have been a reader of this forum for so long . Me too got parking tickets from some PPC and ignored them safely :j

But i saw this article

honestjohn.co DOT(add real dot ,i cant post links yet) uk/news/legal--motoring-advice/2012-08/500000-more-private-parking-tickets-to-be-issued-next-year/

"
A new Law from 1st October 2012 changes liability for parking on private land from the driver of the vehicle to the vehicle’s registered keeper, unless the keeper clearly identifies who was driving the car at the time.
From figures compiled by the British Parking Association, over the last year, 1,800,000 Private Parking Charge tickets were issued. Of these, 31% went unpaid, leaving 1,242,000 paid." :(

so is that true ? If its true , we should start protesting


regards

Lee

pogofish

lijogrg444 wrote: »

Hi

I have been a reader of this forum for so long .

so is that true ? If its true , we should start protesting

If so, how on earth did you miss all the threads on the changes and the protests/challenges that have already been made? There must be at least two hundred by now in this forum alone!

dzug1

Doesn't it just move a theoretical liability from one party to another - ie no real change?

peter_the_piper

As its rare for the landowner to issue tickets, the change to RK responsibility has little real effect. Possible scenarios:-
1) Ticket issued by landowner (not ppc) --owner claims RK responsible for paying ticket--RK denys driving so not responsible--case could go to real court to see if legislation overturns century old ruling.
2) PPC issues ticket (not landowner)---PPC holds RK responsoble---takes to adjudication---RK cites UTT ruling that PPC cannot issue penalties when they do not own land--what follows then????

Stephen_Leak

And, don't forget that, in a lot of cases, the driver and RK will be one and the same person. Definitely no change here.

HO87

As much as I quite enjoy HJ he has a habit of being a bit of an old buffer on occasion and will cite things in an unclear way.

The figures that HJ appears to attribute to the BPA are in fact figures created by the DVLA when they prepared a legislative impact assessment for the government in relation to the proposed change to RK responsibility.

The DVLA claim that the source of the figures were "informal discussions with the BPA". Well, those same informal discussions produced another set of figures alleging that as many as 36,000 or even 90,000 cases were pursued through the small claims courts by private parking companies. We now know the real figures are nowhere near the BPA's. As opposed to the huge figure of 90,000 (or even 36,000) there were just 845 case initiated of which only 49 got as far as a hearing before a judge.

Does that provide something of a clue of how to judge the quality of what the BPA produces?