For the attention of Crabman

LincolnshireYokel

Crabman wrote: »

I can close existing threads with a message but can't do so en masse as I'd need to click on each thread and post a message individually.

As for the articles on the main site and official discussion threads on the forum, that's something MSE's Editorial folks will take care of. I'm not aware of plans for the 1st October in terms of an updated article with new advice as board guides have nothing to do with the main site or articles.

I think the best option is if I email the editorial part of MSE to ask their advice and point out the suggestions on this thread.

P.S: Can I just confirm that where someone receives a private parking ticket (for example) in September, the new keeper liability rules and appeal processes that commence on 1st October 2012 will not apply retrospectively?

I humbly suggest you start closing as many old dead threads as you can to stop newbies posting on the ends of them.

taffy056

Yes it would be an idea to close as many as possible with something like this as the last post.

---

Due to changes brought in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, the advice in this thread is now probably out of date effective 1st October 2012. We would still like to offer up to date advice, can you please create a new thread in the parking forum below.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

---

Or words to that effect , if anyone has anything to add ammend ?

LincolnshireYokel

Well we could add DEATH TO PRIVATE PARKING SCUM on the end, but ive no doubt the mods wouldnt let us...................

BASFORDLAD

This will be a good excuse to start collecting tickets so we can update the letter chain quicker:)

bazster

RENEGADE wrote: »

As I'm still unclear of this side of things, can someone tell me exactly what POPLA stands for and where they come into the picture.

PoPLA = Parking on Private Land Appeals, which is the "independent" appeals service the BPA has been forced to set up as the quid pro quo for registered keeper "liability".

For every appeal that goes to PoPLA the PPC will have to pay £27+VAT, which is why the "don't appeal" advice has changed to "appeal". The result of the appeal is binding on the PPC, but not the motorist, so having appealed to PoPLA, thereby costing the PPC £27+VAT, you can revert to "ignore everything".

It strikes me that with both the BPA code of practice and the government's official guidance to POFA both stating that a charge must reflect genuine losses and not be a penalty, PoPLA would find it hard to ignore that factor in considering appeals. This is all going to be very hard going for the PPC's, and as has been suggested here recently some may start questioning why they even bother to be BPA members.

HO87

RENEGADE wrote: »

As I'm still unclear of this side of things, can someone tell me exactly what POPLA stands for and where they come into the picture.

I'm puzzled by something else - is something set to alter matters radically from 1 October? I realise that a keeper is answerable for his vehicle's involvement in a breach of parking contract but why do we recommend an "appeal"? That was once the buzzword to avoid. Nobody says not to communicate with the swines but surely a rejection of demand would be far better given that they will seek de facto penalties disproportionate to actual losses. Surely one strongly-worded letter to the PPC telling them that the action did not cost them the money they demand and that if they disagree they should attempt county court will suffice, won't it?

Or is this hallmark of justice within Contract Law also overturned come 1st October?

This is a broad brush update so there will probably be elements I miss or skate over - neither intended.

As of 1st October the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 comes in to force or more specifically Schedule 4 does. Setting aside the fact that clamping on private land is criminalised on that date of more particular interest is the impact on the PPC World. Essentially, the most immediate change is that provided procedures are followed PPC's unable to identify the driver at the time of an alleged breach of contract or trespass can, instead, pursue the owner (who, in the majority of cases is likely to be the registered keeper).

As far as this is concerned this effectively overturns the principal of privity in respect of private parking invoices but we're stuck with that. Statute Law trumps Common Law. A PPC will still need to prove their case ultimately. It does not mean that the owner is immediately liable and must pay the demand it merely permits a PPC to bridge the gap and place someone in their sights.

As a result of POFA a formal "independent" appeals mechanism has been established - Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) - which will be operated by the London Councils organisation and will be funded directly and exclusively by the PPC's. Motorists must have appealed unsuccessfully to the PPC, in the first instance, in order to be able to appeal to POPLA. POPLA decisions will be binding on the PPC but, importantly, not on the appellant. So, even if a motorist appeals to the PPC and POPLA and both appeals are rejected the invoice remains unenforceable.

POFA requires PPC's to establish a number of processes within their organisations all of which have a cost attached and each POPLA appeal will cost them £32 - which they cannot pass on to their invoice recipients.

The proposed action plan is intended to take advantage of the opportunities the new law provides to put PPC's to proof - oblige them to abide by the law at every remove (which will come as something of a unique experience for some). The obvious side effect is that it will cause additional costs for PPC's, further squeezing their margins and reducing the funds available for the occasional investment in county court proceedings.

Coupling this new action plan with recent court judgments, particularly VCS v HMRC, means that the road to PPC profits will be considerably rockier than it has been and the necessity to follow procedures will make it far, far longer - and laced with potholes.

HTH

bazster

HO87 wrote: »

As far as this is concerned this effectively overturns the principal of privity in respect of private parking invoices but we're stuck with that. Statute Law trumps Common Law.

Yes, but I can't help thinking that this is going to land in the European Court of Human Rights sooner rather than later.

HO87

bazster wrote: »

Yes, but I can't help thinking that this is going to land in the European Court of Human Rights sooner rather than later.

You may well be right but even if it came to pass that would be two plus years down the road and we are where we are. The very limited nature of the change and the safeguards built in around it - independent appeals etc and the provision that a court remains the ultimate arbiter - will probably see it slip through. The ECHR does not have a blemish-free record when it comes to reversing pro-corporatist legislation.

Crabman

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

I humbly suggest you start closing as many old dead threads as you can to stop newbies posting on the ends of them.

taffy056 wrote: »

Yes it would be an idea to close as many as possible with something like this as the last post.

There are over 4,000 open threads on this sub-board at the moment. The rest have been closed automatically by forum software (applies to threads that have been inactive for two years).

Posting an individual message and closing even a fraction of these threads is not an option for me. The only way I see this particular solution working is if MSE agree that closing old threads is a viable option and if they have the tools to do so on a volume basis with the suggested notification message.

I've made an alternative suggestion that threads started before 1st October 2012 are colour coded (or otherwise differentiated) so that board regulars know which ones refer to the old regime. This means that people who get tickets during the period until 1st October 2012 will still be able to post for advice and reassurance when threatening "debt collector" and "notice of intended court action" template letters arrive.

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Crabman, obviously the PPCs will use this new legislation in their letters and we will need to update all the letter chains..... over the next few months

This is not a problem, I'll archive the existing letter chains thread and start a new one.

jkdd77

It's worth noting that Schedule 4 won't apply at all in Scotland (where clamping is already banned) and Northern Ireland (where clamping will remain lawful), so the "old advice" to ignore invoices (in most circumstances) will remain applicable to these parts of the UK.

Furthermore, it appears from the commencement order at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2075/article/3/made
that Schedule 4 will only be commenced on 1 October in relation to England; it will presumably be for the Welsh Ministers to decide whether and when to commence it in Wales, and, with luck, it won't ever be commenced there.

If Schedule 4 is not commenced in Wales, the advice to ignore will continue to apply there as well, and the clamping ban will apply in Wales regardless, so there is no risk of being clamped or towed over alleged past debts.

I would suggest that any "new advice" will make the distinction clear between different parts of the UK. I bet certain PPCs will misleadingly refer to "RK liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012" in letters sent to Scotland (and Wales, if Schedule 4 is not commenced there).

With regard to the "colour coding of threads", I think that is a good idea, although, at least to begin with, it is plausible that a person might post after 1 October in relation to an invoice "earned" (so to speak) before 1 October, so, once again, the old advice would continue to apply.