MSE News: Private parking appeals service launches

Former_MSE_Dan

I've looked through this now and want to clarify the inaccuracies referred to

Drivers wanting to challenge charges made in private car parks in England and Wales can use a new appeals service from today, though there is a catch.

Previously, if a motorist wanted to complain about a parking charge received on private land, they had to appeal to the parking company directly. If they still felt the decision was unfair, they had to challenge the charge in court.

Utter rubbish! If the driver had not paid it was up to the
PPC to take the driver to court.

That said, the above only applied if motorists used the system suggested by parking firms, though in many cases it's worth ignoring an unfair ticket because rogue companies often fail to chase you up

The paragraph directly after the inserted red comment says exactly what the red comment is referring to.

From today, the vehicle owner will be liable for any charges, regardless of whether they were the driver or not. Previously, the driver was liable.

Waiting for an answer back on this, but I believe this is what we have been told.

I will continue to work with the team to review this, but if anyone can point out specific factual errors that they believe remain in the article, that would be helpful

Dan

BASFORDLAD

Dan who provided you with the info saying that? Was it the BPA,have you not learned ananything?

You only have to read on here to get the correct information.

AlexisV

From today, the vehicle owner will be liable for any charges, regardless of whether they were the driver or not. Previously, the driver was liable.

The driver is liable from day 1, unless the parking company does not have their name and address. In this case, the registered keeper is invited to inform the company the name and current address of the driver.

If they fail to do this, liability passes to the keeper. If they do inform the company, liability remains with the driver.

bazster

Dan, I see someone has removed the nonsense about the motorist needing to challenge the charge in court.

This is still wrong:

"But this means consumers still have very little protection from rogue parking operators."

Consumers don't need protection, they simply need to ignore. As a purported money-saving website this is the message you should be giving your readers. You haven't even pointed out that non-AOS members can't access DVLA data and therefore cannot even find out who to chase over their fake tickets.


This is dodgy too, and gives these "charges" a veneer of authenticity they don't deserve:

"Under changes to the BPA's code of practice, AOS members in England and Wales also have to reduce the maximum parking charge from £150 to £100, although operators will be able to charge more than £100 if they can justify the amount."

Charges have to be a "genuine pre-estimate of loss". Even the BPA's Code of Practice admits this. The £100 figure is an arbitrary fiction plucked out of the air by the BPA and has no legal significance whatsoever. If the charge can't be justified as a "genuine pre-estimate of loss" then it doesn't matter whether it's £1, £100 or £1,000,000, it is not enforceable.

Finally, this sweeping statement is highly misleading:

"From today, the vehicle owner will be liable for any charges, regardless of whether they were the driver or not. Previously, the driver was liable."

The registered keeper (NOT THE OWNER) is only liable in very specific circumstances. Firstly, the charge has to be enforceable against the driver, and secondly, the parking company has to be unable to discover the identity of the driver. If there was no charge enforceable against the driver (because a contract was not properly formed, or the charge is an unenforceable penalty, and so on) then the driver is not liable and nor is the keeper. Furthermore, if the parking company knows who the driver was (for instance, because the keeper told them) then the keeper is not liable - regardless of whether the driver pays.

BASFORDLAD

The edited article is an improvement!

verityboo

The article is still biased towards suggesting that it is for the driver to prove they are innocent when in reality it is for the PPC to prove they are guilty and owe them money. Due to the tax ruling they can't owe the PPC anything virtually every case

The article should simply have said that there are changes regarding PPCs but they are irrelevant, ignore 'parking charge notices' and go to this forum if you need support.

Coupon-mad

MSE_Helen wrote: »

"A new appeals service for complaints about private parking charges in England and Wales is launched today..."

Read the full story:

Private parking appeals service launches

Seriously hope this will be substantially improved before MSE even thinks about mentioning this in the weekly email. Since when did MSE become the voicepiece for the BPA, regurgitating factually incorrect stuff which might result in readers thinking they actually have to pay a fake PCN?

I didn't see it this morning so I understand it has been improved. But it could be better, more informative about the scam and the option to ignore (or appeal to POPLA then ignore).

Coupon-mad

taffy056 wrote: »

Perhaps it could be written along the lines of this

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/60331/watchdog-clamping-law

Yep, this article was the one that nailed it (after some severe editing)! MSE too can explain it like this.

These charges are no more enforceable than Travelodge 'smoking fines' and surely everyone who watched Watchdog last week saw straight through those.

realaledrinker

Was depressing to hear the AA's Edmund King of all people refer to these as 'fines' on Radio 5 Drive this evening.

There was also no suggestion whatsoever that parking charge notices have no legitimacy and can be safely ignored.

Spartacus_Mills

MSE_Helen wrote: »

"A new appeals service for complaints about private parking charges in England and Wales is launched today..."

Read the full story:

Private parking appeals service launches

Churnalism at its finest. Shame on you for this awful piece and shame on Martin, as a consumer champion, for allowing it.