Schedule 4 update.

peter_the_piper

In case some do not subscribe to pepipoo then this will be of interest.
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

Couple of queries.
1.1 seems to go against VCSvHMRC
Can't see any reference to ANPR cameras.

Orford

6.2 Where a contravention is detected remotely (such as by cameras), the landholder may request registered keeper data from the DVLA immediately and must write to the registered keeper within 14 days seeking details of the driver or payment of the parking charge.

LincolnshireYokel

"It does not create any new form of liability for parking charges or provide a route to claim parking charges which were not lawfully due in the first place.
11"

AlexisV

It doesn't go against VCS - a landholder can collect the charges on behalf of the landowner. The issue with VCS was the right for an agent to form a contract if they did not own the land. A landowner can offer a contract and instruct payment to be made to their agent, who in effect acts as a factoring company. But ask yourself why landowners don't do that anyway, if it's so simple.

The rest of the document seems to spend its time pointing out how unenforceable contractual penalties are whilst informing who may be theoretically liable for them.

The farce continues.

Half_way

AlexisV wrote: »

It doesn't go against VCS - a landholder can collect the charges on behalf of the landowner. The issue with VCS was the right for an agent to form a contract if they did not own the land. A landowner can offer a contract and instruct payment to be made to their agent, who in effect acts as a factoring company. But ask yourself why landowners don't do that anyway, if it's so simple.

The rest of the document seems to spend its time pointing out how unenforceable contractual penalties are whilst informing who may be theoretically liable for them.

The farce continues.

So as a registered keeper, owner, and driver and i commit the offence of having my car tyre slightly on a white line in a car park then i can be held liable for an unenforcable penalty clause in an un enforcable contract.
As for the rest of it, it does mention that they can only charge for genuine losses, for example it would be intersting to see how a car park operator can state that parking for 2hours and 10 minutes, 10 minutes over the contractualy agreed maximum time or walking acrosss the road to a cash machine or to visit a few other shops from a free, but not full car park can justify a loss of say £80 and if this is a genuine loss then why does it increase over time?


In my opinion the excuse of im not telling you who was driving, and if i dont tell them they cant go after me, is an incredibly poor excuse/defence, especialy when you realise all the other legitiamte resons why you shouldnt even think about paying a parking company their un reasonable, un justifiable and un enforcable penalty charges and/or (privatly levied) fines.

so to all intents and purposes, the POFA changes absolutly nothing.

bluepatchworkcat

Does this mean that although registered keepers will be asked about the driver of the vehicle after 1st Oct, current 'offences' remain as they are, i.e. we can go on ignoring them?

taffy056

But what is the loss here ? If £80 is the loss how do they offer a 50% discount if paid within 14 days? Why does the loss increase on day 15 ?

Half_way

If the penalty states £80 reduced to £40 if paid within X amount of time then couldnt you argue that both amounts are un enforcable, as they are contractual penaltys, the costs dont suddenly jump after 14 days, if youve made a loss youve made a loss, and the only way that loss could increase is with standard inflation rates.

with the reduced rate/increase afteer a certain amount of time its clear that these fees are set out to penalise and are therefore penaltys and as such un enforcable.

taffy056

bluepatchworkcat wrote: »

Does this mean that although registered keepers will be asked about the driver of the vehicle after 1st Oct, current 'offences' remain as they are, i.e. we can go on ignoring them?

What happens before 1st October will not allow parking companies to use the new rules retrospectively, so the advice of ignore stands. After that the advice is likely to say to appeal to popla so it costs them £32 a shot, then no matter what happens there ignore the parking company, as it's binding on them but not the driver

taffy056

Half_way wrote: »

If the penalty states £80 reduced to £40 if paid within X amount of time then couldnt you argue that both amounts are un enforcable, as they are contractual penaltys, the costs dont suddenly jump after 14 days, if youve made a loss youve made a loss, and the only way that loss could increase is with standard inflation rates.

with the reduced rate/increase afteer a certain amount of time its clear that these fees are set out to penalise and are therefore penaltys and as such un enforcable.

I agree, which means it should be an appeal point, the loss doesn't double on day 15 after the invoice, which means that the parking company must provide proof of why the magical day 15 increases the loss. The discount period is purely to mimic council tickets so to appear as if it's an authority.

bazster

AlexisV wrote: »

It doesn't go against VCS - a landholder can collect the charges on behalf of the landowner. The issue with VCS was the right for an agent to form a contract if they did not own the land. A landowner can offer a contract and instruct payment to be made to their agent, who in effect acts as a factoring company. But ask yourself why landowners don't do that anyway, if it's so simple.

Perzackly.

See para 3.6:

In order to enforce a parking ticket a landholder first has to be able to show that a contract to park existed between the driver and the landholder