independent appeals from October - Question

taffy056

bazster wrote: »

Remains to be seen, but I can't see a court upholding any claim where the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to utilise the established appeal mechanism.

But it goes back to if you use the appeals process are you accepting that they issued the invoice legitimately, because you are appealing it. Which brings me to the next point what happens if you simply ignore it all and don't bother with the appeal at all.

The only way for the scammers to get money is to go to court, but if the appeals are not used can they take you to court ? And if they do can you then say you want to go the appeals process instead ?

Also if the RK is liable it will mean that hire companies will likely change their t&c's and deduct money automatically with an admin fee. Basically you are strewed in a hire/lease vehicle.

bargepole

taffy056 wrote: »

...Also if the RK is liable it will mean that hire companies will likely change their t&c's and deduct money automatically with an admin fee. Basically you are strewed in a hire/lease vehicle.

Not so. There is a separate provision in the Act to cover hire vehicles, as follows:

Hire vehicles13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land if—
(a)the vehicle was at the time of parking hired to any person under a hire agreement with a vehicle-hire firm; and
(b)the keeper has been given a notice to keeper within the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) or 9(4) (as the case may be).
(2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.


So in other words, the hire companies will have no cause to pay PPC charges as long as they pass on the hirer's details.

bazster

taffy056 wrote: »

But it goes back to if you use the appeals process are you accepting that they issued the invoice legitimately, because you are appealing it. Which brings me to the next point what happens if you simply ignore it all and don't bother with the appeal at all.

The only way for the scammers to get money is to go to court, but if the appeals are not used can they take you to court ? And if they do can you then say you want to go the appeals process instead ?

I imagine there will be a time limit for appeals, and once that has expired without you appealing then (i) they will continue the threatograms, and might ultimately take you to court and (ii) you can't appeal later. At least, that's what I would do if I were setting up the scheme, but we'll see.

taffy056 wrote: »

Also if the RK is liable it will mean that hire companies will likely change their t&c's and deduct money automatically with an admin fee. Basically you are strewed in a hire/lease vehicle.

The act explicitly excludes hire companies from RK liability, so nothing changes as far as the hire companies are concerned.

peter_the_piper

bargepole wrote: »

Not so. There is a separate provision in the Act to cover hire vehicles, as follows:

Hire vehicles13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land if—
(a)the vehicle was at the time of parking hired to any person under a hire agreement with a vehicle-hire firm; and
(b)the keeper has been given a notice to keeper within the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) or 9(4) (as the case may be).
(2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.


So in other words, the hire companies will have no cause to pay PPC charges as long as they pass on the hirer's details.

But in all likelyhood nothing will change, they will pay and charge you anyway.

Coupon-mad

taffy056 wrote: »

Also if the RK is liable it will mean that hire companies will likely change their t&c's and deduct money automatically with an admin fee. Basically you are strewed in a hire/lease vehicle.

Nope because I recall an amendment was added when the Bill was being discussed in the Commons. It was an amendment requested by lease companies. Not sure if came from the BVRLA but I recall reading a daily update on the Bill's progression and seeing that they had agreed to the request to specifically add some wording to clarify that lease hire companies were not liable.

EDIT, just read further and saw that bargepole has located it in the Act! I really must keep up!

alison_g

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Now that could be interesting, if we used a standard template letter and a standard name and address (same every time!) to every fake PCN after October!

:rotfl:

Of course if you knowingly gave a false name and address this this would be an offence under s2 and possibly s3 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Is it really worth lying over a parking ticket and comitting a criminal act ?

SodG24

alison_g wrote: »

Of course if you knowingly gave a false name and address this this would be an offence under s2 and possibly s3 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Is it really worth lying over a parking ticket and comitting a criminal act ?

I think you'll find the Fraud Act doesn't apply here.

ripped_off_driver

Total nonsense about fraud. There is no obligation on a registered keeper to supply correct driver details and no sanction if they supply incorrect details. It is just one of the reasons why the keeper liability provisions are a total waste of time.

alison_g

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Total nonsense about fraud. There is no obligation on a registered keeper to supply correct driver details and no sanction if they supply incorrect details. It is just one of the reasons why the keeper liability provisions are a total waste of time.

You are incorrect.
If a person names another in order to avoid payment of a charge then it is totally covered by the Fraud Act.
There clearly is an obligation to give correct details, where do you come that conslusion.
You are clearly submitting a document which you know contains false details in order to avoid liability covered in statute.
To say it is nonsense and lead people up the path like that is very dangerous.
I would urge anyone caution before taking your advice and being dishonest.

SodG24

alison_g wrote: »

You are incorrect.
If a person names another in order to avoid payment of a charge then it is totally covered by the Fraud Act.
There clearly is an obligation to give correct details, where do you come that conslusion.
You are clearly submitting a document which you know contains false details in order to avoid liability covered in statute.
To say it is nonsense and lead people up the path like that is very dangerous.
I would urge anyone caution before taking your advice and being dishonest.

The charge isn't lawful so giving the wrong name is irrelevant.

I might be doing you a disservice here but I smell a rat.