Flash Park, what happens on 1st Oct 2012??

Bankrobber_3

Flash Park have put some so called legal stuff on their website. In it they mention that from the 1st October 2012 onwards the owner WILL be obliged to disclose the identity of the driver. Can anyone throw any light on this?


Look at, www dot flashpark dot co dot uk/Legal.aspx

substitute dot for . had to do it like this I can't post links.


I have also posted this on the CAG forum and had no response.

Spider_Soprano

That's right. However, it makes no difference as to the advice of to still ignore any ppc invoice. The RK will need to disclose who was driving....and????? The driver then gets a speculative invoice and continues to ignore it. Makes no difference whatsoever as far as I can see.

Bankrobber_3

OK I take your point, but how has this change come about?

taffy056

It's the RK who needs to disclose who the driver is not the owner, the owner could be a bank or finance company, if they have that up on their site it's not accurate. As for advise after 01/10/12 we are not certain exactly what we'll be doing , but at the moment it looks like that we will be recommending appealing every invoice to the allegdly independent appeal as it costs them £27 for each one, which is binding on them but not the motorist.

fb1969

Bankrobber wrote: »

In it they mention that from the 1st October 2012 onwards the owner WILL be obliged to disclose the identity of the driver.

From www.flashpark.co.uk/Legal.aspx "the registered owner of the vehicle will have an obligation to identify who the driver was."

Well that is a lie. The Protection of Freedoms Act will make the Registered Keeper liable, it DOES NOT make the the RK obliged to disclose who the driver was.

All it means is that a PPC would be able to pursue the RK if they are not told someone else was driving.

Who would have thought it, a PPC (and member of the BPA) bending the truth somewhat on their website.

muckybutt

It can also be said that if the ppc doesnt have a vested interest in the land then they can still swivell, as outlined in the VCS case ONLY the landowner can pursue for costs.

Bankrobber_3

This is brilliant. They not only sc#m the motorist they sc#m the landowner as well, allegedly. Money for old rope!

Dublindel

Can't really pursue the RK either if he was not the driver as he was not there to read the T&C's so could not enter into a contract

LincolnshireYokel

Bankrobber wrote: »

OK I take your point, but how has this change come about?

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, comes into force 1st October 2012.

On that day all private clamping and towing becomes illegal as well

ginnersinner

Having read Sched 4, it seems that the following is the case.
If the PPC does not know the name and address of the driver (and they never will unless they ask them at the time) the PPC has the right to invite the RK to EITHER pay the charge OR identify the driver's name and address (Para 8(2)(e) or 9(2)(e)). The PPC also has the right to recover unpaid charges from the RK if, after 28 days from serving a notice on the RK, the charges remain unpaid AND the PPC doesn't know the Driver's name and address (Para 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f)). This, to my reading, means that if you as RK inform the PPC of the driver's name and address, following receipt of a notice, then both of the conditions in 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) are not fulfilled, and the PPC cannot pursue the RK. Schedule 4 does not allow for the pursuit of the RK if the PPC knows the driver's details. Therefore, in order to avoid being pursued, the RK must identify the driver - even if that driver is them - but Sched 4 does not force them as the 'driver' into paying, and the driver can simply revert to the old 'not an enforceable contract term' argument.
Any lawyers out there want to provide an expert opinion? The Schedule is here:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Coupon-mad

ginnersinner wrote: »

Having read Sched 4, it seems that the RK is royally stitched up. The PPC has the right to invite the RK to either pay the charge or identify the driver's name and address (Para 8(2)(e) or 9(2)(e)). The PPC also has the right to recover unpaid charges from the RK if, after 28 days from serving a notice on the RK, the charges remain unpaid AND the PPC doesn't know the Driver's name and address (Para 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f)). This, essentially, appears to mean that, from 1st October, the RK is a party to the contract, even if they knew nothing about it. This flies in the face of all previous rules regarding civil contracts.
Any lawyers out there want to provide an expert opinion?

It's already been done to death on other threads. We have been discussing this since over a year ago!

It's not half as bad as it may first appear. Read threads mentioning POPLA (the new appeals procedure that the PPCs have to fund themselves!).

No-one is stitched up because the registered keeper can just appeal to POPLA (which costs each PPC £27 PLUS VAT, regardless of outcome!!). Then they can revert to ignore mode because the decision of this tribunal will only be binding upon the PPC, not the motorist.

It's gonna be fun. 'Ignore' will no longer be the advice, not until everyone has first cost their PPC money with a POPLA appeal. Almost worth collecting fake PCNs for! :D