ppc changes OCT

peter_the_piper

bargepole wrote: »

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

But we all know how easy it is for a non BPA member to get numbers etc, Ranger services et al. I notice that on pepipoo they mention that ranger do not (ALLEGEDLY) act as a ppc or landowner so just how do they get RK details anyway? Oh i forgot, DVLA just hand them out for a fee.

devonlad

bazster wrote: »

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

I protested in my signature wouldn't I get banned

bazster

devonlad wrote: »

I protested in my signature wouldn't I get banned

Quite possibly. It doesn't hurt, it's only a website.

AlexisV

the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land;

“parking charge”—
(a)in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, and
(b)in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages,

The first condition is that the creditor—
(a)has the right to enforce

Interpret as you will!

The_Slithy_Tove

SodG24 wrote: »

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.

Penalty? What "penalty" would that be?

SodG24

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Penalty? What "penalty" would that be?

That would be the non-penalty that I describe as illegal in the last part of the post.

dazzapot

bazster wrote: »

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".

I've seen one case documented (VCP) where this one company did not have legitimate rights.. what evidence is there regarding all the others?

Is there some defacto legal issue covering all of them?

SodG24

dazzapot wrote: »

I've seen one case documented (VCP) where this one company did not have legitimate rights.. what evidence is there regarding all the others?

Is there some defacto legal issue covering all of them?

The point the judge made was that the PPC had no interest in the land ( i.e. didn't own it nor had a lease for it ) so couldn't make a contract or take drivers to court.

With the possible exception of NCP who do own a lot of land, PPCs don't own the land they patrol and if YOU owned the land would you seriously agree to a lease ?

bazster

dazzapot wrote: »

I've seen one case documented (VCP) where this one company did not have legitimate rights.. what evidence is there regarding all the others?

Is there some defacto legal issue covering all of them?

Yes. Only a landowner or licensed occupier can make an offer to park on his land. Does your next-door-neighbour have the right to offer parking on your driveway? No he does not. And even if you give your neighbour permission to offer parking on your driveway, all you do then is to make him your agent. The offer is still being made by you and any contract arising is entered into by you.

Your neighbour can't enter into a contract permitting someone else to park on your land, because it's not his land. It's just like selling property: only you own your property, so only you can sell it to someone else.

This was confirmed in the Upper Tax Tribunal (a Superior Court of Record, at a similar level to the High Court) when a parking company tried to argue that they were principal to a contract to park and not merely the agent. The legal analysis by the Justices reeks of exasperation that someone could even question such a blindingly obvious principle of law:

VCS was not in a position, by virtue of its limited licence, to make any offer of a right to park...That interest did not amount to a licence to occupy, or give VCS any right to possession.

The Justices further elaborated:

We agree with Mr Singh that no right to park could have been, or was, offered
by VCS to the motorist. Motorists who parked in the car park were generally already permitted to park by the client, the landowner, to whom permits had been given. Those motorists already had the right to park, subject to the permit conditions, without fear of an action for trespass by the landowner in any event.

So, a PPC can't offer you the right to park on someone else's car park because the landowner has already granted you that right! In other words, if you go and park at Morrisons it is Morrisons who are inviting you to park there, not their PPC!

A decision by such a court sets a precedent i.e. it's binding on junior courts such as the Small Claims Track of the County Courts.

ManxRed

Oh dear.

Legislation won't over-rule the fact that contract penalties are unenforceable, and that parking companies need to hold sufficient rights in the land before they can form a contract with a driver.

Are you going to comply with BPA guidelines and declare who you work for, or do we need to guess?