Wheel-clamping on private land banned from today.

HardWorker2010_2

pendulum wrote: »

Well I'm reading through the law now and it appears to be a disaster, they may have banned clamping but private ticketing companies now have the law behind them to persue the registered keeper and they will do.

The advice to ignore private parking tickets no longer applies.

The ticketing companies will be better off than they were before.

Pursue the RK for what exactly?

The charges still have no legal basis. The RK can ignore the trumped up charges just as easily as the actual driver could.

If a PPC was stupid enough to take a RK to court they would still lose on the basis that they have no authority to offer parking on land that they don't own, can't charge for parking on land they don't own and definatley can't sue anyone for failing to hand over money to them for parking on such land. (The land owner can do all these but not a bunch of scammers operating a PPC).

If the PPCs fancy their chances in court I can see the value of toothbrushes going up at the same rate as wheelclamps falling. :rotfl::rotfl:



.

pendulum

sillygoose wrote: »

I would happily supply the name and address of my 'Nigerian uncle' who was borrowing my car on that day. although he does move quite often..

Perverting the course of justice springs to mind, now that their rights for the correct details are enshrined in law, and you wouldn't be laughing then.

There are some interesting months ahead, and we will soon see how "unenforceable" these new rights are, given that the parking companies are bound to test them, but after a reading of this it doesn't look good.

adouglasmhor

pendulum wrote: »

Perverting the course of justice springs to mind, now that their rights for the correct details are enshrined in law, and you wouldn't be laughing then.

There are some interesting months ahead, and we will soon see how "unenforceable" these new rights are, given that the parking companies are bound to test them, but after a reading of this it doesn't look good.

Falls in the first sentence.

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; and

They have no obligation to pay. so

ManxRed

pendulum wrote: »

... but after a reading of this it doesn't look good.

Looks fine to me. Read it again.

HardWorker2010_2

pendulum wrote: »

Perverting the course of justice springs to mind, now that their rights for the correct details are enshrined in law, and you wouldn't be laughing then.

There are some interesting months ahead, and we will soon see how "unenforceable" these new rights are, given that the parking companies are bound to test them, but after a reading of this it doesn't look good.

Looked at your link.

Their downfall is right at the start:

1)This Schedule applies where—

(a)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;

(My bold to highlight point)

PPCs can't offer parking on land they don't own.

Game, Set & Match & Championship. :T:T:T:T

pendulum

HardWorker2010 wrote: »

Pursue the RK for what exactly?

The charges still have no legal basis. The RK can ignore the trumped up charges just as easily as the actual driver could.

If the parking fees had no legal basis, there wouldn't be new legislation detailing parking companies rights to enforce the said charges.

HardWorker2010 wrote: »

If a PPC was stupid enough to take a RK to court they would still lose on the basis that they have no authority to offer parking on land that they don't own, can't charge for parking on land they don't own and definatley can't sue anyone for failing to hand over money to them for parking on such land. (The land owner can do all these but not a bunch of scammers operating a PPC).

Why can't a landowner delegate the responsibilities of car park management to another company and have that company act as his agent? I can see no problem with this as it's standard practice and I doubt a court will see a problem with it either, to be honest.

Time will tell which one of us is right, we'll have to see.

bazster

pendulum wrote: »

Perverting the course of justice springs to mind, now that their rights for the correct details are enshrined in law, and you wouldn't be laughing then.

There are some interesting months ahead, and we will soon see how "unenforceable" these new rights are, given that the parking companies are bound to test them, but after a reading of this it doesn't look good.

Right to correct details enshrined in law? Nonsense. What's the parking company going to do if the RK declines to give them driver details? Have him arrested and thrown into the Tower of London?

The RK is under no obligation whatsoever to tell the parking company anything. OK, if he doesn't tell them who was driving, they will chase him - but that's pretty much what they do anyway!

And the charges are still no more enforceable than they were, the only change is that they can be unenforceable against a different person!

pendulum

And I can see it coming... no, I don't work for a private ticketing company, and I've fought two tickets myself in the past from McDonalds. So don't even go there.

shyammy21

sillygoose wrote: »

Does liability still apply to the registered keeper if they willingly supply the drivers name so that the parking company can pursue them?

just a thought...
I would happily supply the name and address of my 'Nigerian uncle' who was borrowing my car on that day. although he does move quite often..

Under the Protection of Freedom's act, Schedule 4 Section 8:

warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

The bloody media are all over the removal of wheelclamping however ticketing on private land has just got worse. :mad:

ManxRed

pendulum wrote: »

Why can't a landowner delegate the responsibilities of car park management to another company and have that company act as his agent? I can see no problem with this as it's standard practice and I doubt a court will see a problem with it either, to be honest.

They can.

Its just that if they want to pursue the matter through court, then the landowner needs to bring the action, not the parking company. After all, its the landowner who will have been 'wronged' through errant parking, not the parking company, they are just there to manage the parking.

Bear in mind they would need to demonstrate that the charges were in line with the actual losses they had suffered,