Wheel-clamping on private land banned from today.

bazster

County courts are unpredictable!

shyammy21

so from looking at this government guidance, essentially it's establishing whether a contract betweeen a landowner and a vechile owner exists and whether parking management company can bring any court action if they are acting on behalf of a landowner which i doubt...

RENEGADE_2

pendulum wrote: »

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

Pendulum, you may have been reading the guidelines but this is not reading the law. It is more complicated than that.

Of course a landowner can hire a third party to manage parking order and naturally he can make a business through a pay and display arrangement. And now the law has changed to enable the landowner to pursue the registered keeper for unpaid fees. However, unpaid fees remain only the amount by which he is out of pocket as a result of the breach of contract for which the pronominal vehicle was involved. The new laws no more give PPCs the green light to issue de facto penalties than did those to have expired yesterday.

Before it can be possible legally for the PPC to penalise you, so many acts dating back centuries would have to be repealed that private car parks would be the last thing on anyone's mind, it would be a return to pre-history with everybody suing anyone to breach his little contract. The inability of PPCs to flex their muscles like the council is not something drafted in one protocol but rather a backwash of existing laws, and the only way out is to dismantle the entire structure of civil legislation.

The government on the other hand turn a blind eye to the fact that they see the outfit as one capitalist game. I tell you that you owe me £50 for no reason, you pay it. Two weeks later the paperboy tells you that you were conned and there was no need and so you sue me. It could go two ways: the judge may say Volenti non fit injuria (to the willing, no harm is done) or he may order me to return your money. But so long as I am registered and have paid tax on earnings, Mr. Cameron isn't going to lose one wink of sleep.

boyced

does this mean that its no longer just an invoice?

trisontana

Nothing has changed. It's still an unenforceable invoice.

bazster

boyced wrote: »

does this mean that its no longer just an invoice?

Not at all. Still just an invoice, still ignorable.

Paranoid

Most respectfully suggest that posters (who haven't already) read the Dept. for Transport guide and flow charts showing the procedures for pursuing unauthorised parkers on private land. You might get your head round it after a couple of readings. Doubtful if many, if any, PCN issuers will bother.

[Deleted User]

Paranoid wrote: »

Most respectfully suggest that posters (who haven't already) read the Dept. for Transport guide and flow charts showing the procedures for pursuing unauthorised parkers on private land. You might get your head round it after a couple of readings. Doubtful if many, if any, PCN issuers will bother.

This guide states that the definition of a Landowner is

"Where a private landowner chooses to offer or restrict parking on his/her land, he or she may make arrangements for an agent to manage and operate the land, including charging drivers for breaking parking conditions. This guide uses the term “landholder” to mean either a private landowner or an agent (or agents) properly authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking on the land in question."

and in the flowchart

"If the keeper does not respond to the notice within 28 days or refuses to pay the parking charge, or refuses (or is unable) to name the driver, the landholder may take action in the Courts against the vehicle keeper to seek recovery of the unpaid parking charge."

My bold letters, does this mean that "agents" can now actually enforce the charges in court?

bazster

[quote=[Deleted User];56274589]My bold letters, does this mean that "agents" can now actually enforce the charges in court?[/QUOTE]

No, this is just guidance, it isn't the law. Nothing has changed in law as to who may or may not form a contract to park and who may enforce that contract.

[Deleted User]

bazster wrote: »

No, this is just guidance, it isn't the law. Nothing has changed in law as to who may or may not form a contract to park and who may enforce that contract.

OK good, but surely the DoT of all people should get it right.

A lot of people will use their guide and take it as law that the agent can now pursue them in court.

The "agents" will probably include the thing in their "invoices"