ppc changes OCT

devonlad

Hi all and i know u prob discussed this loads but could some folk please add a few links or explain to me how the rules are changing in Oct. in another thread someone noted in oct the law changing and simply siad "Oct 1 it might be more complicated than ignore a pcn".
Just a quick explanation would be great so i can pass on to my work mates. would feel guilty if they parked on 2 nd of oct and ignored a pcn cos i said so.

thx

SodG24

In a very simplified form :

As of 1st October :

1. Clamping is banned.

2. There will be an "independent" appeals process run by the BPA. If your appeal to the PPC fails then it can go to the "independent" service. The result is binding on the PPC but not you.

3. In return for item 2 PPCs will be able to hold the registered keeper liable for the penalty.

As yet no new tactics have been decided but it still boils down to the fact that PPCs don't have any rights over the land, can't legally charge the driver or RK a penalty and so can't take either party to court and win.

devonlad

SodG24 wrote: »

In a very simplified form :

As of 1st October :


2. There will be an "independent" appeals process run by the BPA. If your appeal to the PPC fails then it can go to the "independent" service. The result is binding on the PPC but not you.

3. In return for item 2 PPCs will be able to hold the registered keeper liable for the penalty.

Ok sry but had a busy night shift in maternity and like man utd i am rather beat (everton 1 man u 0), does that mean that if i get a pcn again even though i have a permit will i still be able to ignore it as we do now or am i at real risk of being done. i dont mean what you mean binding on the ppc (2.) or return for item 2 registered keeper liable.

like your other posts by the way :beer:

SodG24

devonlad wrote: »

like your other posts by the way :beer:

Thank you - make the most of them, I suspect I might be part of the next "Night of the Long Knives"

bargepole

devonlad wrote: »

... Ok sry but had a busy night shift in maternity and like man utd i am rather beat (everton 1 man u 0), does that mean that if i get a pcn again even though i have a permit will i still be able to ignore it as we do now or am i at real risk of being done. i dont mean what you mean binding on the ppc (2.) or return for item 2 registered keeper liable.

The basic idea is that, in return for the Government banning private clamping, the BPA argued that the PPCs needed to hold the registered keeper liable for private tickets.

So when the Act was drafted, they put in Schedule 4, Clause 56, which says that PPCs can pursue "legitimate" charges against the keeper if he doesn't supply the driver's details.

This was also conditional upon there being an Independent Appeals Process, which can be used if the informal appeal to the PPC is unsuccessful. The BPA have set up an arrangement with the London Councils to operate the appeals service, known as POPLA, and for each appeal submitted, the PPC will have to pay £27+vat, and the decision will be binding on the PPC but not on the motorist.

So all this actually does is remove the "I was not the driver" defence, but the PPC would still have to make a claim in the County Court to enforce payment, where they would have to persuade the Judge that a) the sum is a genuine loss and not a penalty; b) they had sufficient propietary interest in the land to offer parking and form contracts; and c) that they are not breaching UTCCR with their excessive charges.

The advice here is likely to change to: appeal to PPC - appeal to POPLA - if unsuccessful, ignore all demands for payment. This will cost the PPCs lots of time and money, but watch this space.

peter_the_piper

Unless the ppc is not a member of BPA, the driver finds this out only when he appeals, loses, and tells the ppc he wants to go to POPLA. then its a case of ignore.

bazster

It's a dogs breakfast which in reality is of no use to the PPC's at all. In fact it's worse than useless, because you can drag them through the appeals process (costing them £27) and then still refuse to pay.

What the act says is that they can hold the RK liable if they (the PPC) hold a relevant contract. But as we know, they don't actually hold any contract, and nothing in the POFA changes that. So if they do drag the RK to a court hearing the usual argument still applies: "there is no contract".

bargepole

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Unless the ppc is not a member of BPA, the driver finds this out only when he appeals, loses, and tells the ppc he wants to go to POPLA. then its a case of ignore.

If they are not BPA members, they shouldn't be able to get the keeper's details from the DVLA. In theory, anyway.

devonlad

So in short no changes really? And thx

devonlad

SodG24 wrote: »

Thank you - make the most of them, I suspect I might bef the next "Night of the Long Knives"

Lol seems like maybe the month of longer swords

bazster

Protest in your sig about MSE's spineless kow-towing to the PPCs.