1st October new rules. I'm confused. Someone explain in simple English.

loadbang

Just been watching BBC News (Midlands Today).

They have a piece on clamping and towing by private companies are now banned. However, they also state that tickets by private companies are also enforceable in law, which they were not before.

Someone on MSE explain what exactly is going on?

I'm confused between either by; bad journalism, people contradicting each other on these forums and others, or reading the BPA etc that make everything sound in favour of the private companies.

ManxRed

Bad journalism.

Definitely. They are NOT enforceable in law.

bazster

It's complete rubbish. Private tickets are no more enforceable than they ever were. The only difference from today is that in the unlikely event of a private company issuing an enforceable ticket then it can be enforced against the keeper if the issuing company can't find out who the driver was. But if it's not enforceable (as it generally wasn't and isn't) then it can't be enforced against anyone.

BASFORDLAD

I haven't got time to go into detail, but private tickets are NOT enforceable. Was it thst story with the clamper( black guy , Wilkins something?)

AlexisV

Read this: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges/

Only charges that are a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred, or actual damages for trespass are enforceable (read the FAQs).

99.9% of PPC tickets are neither.

daveyjp

Good link which sets it out the whole process in black and white.

loadbang

AlexisV wrote: »

Read this: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges/

Only charges that are a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred, or actual damages for trespass are enforceable (read the FAQs).

99.9% of PPC tickets are neither.

Reading that, it gives private companies the right to enforce tickets, and if the driver isn't known they can charge the owner as they are now responsible.

You miss out the point that terms and conditions are set out by the landowner, and that they are enforcable as long as they follow "schedule 4".

"Protection of Freedoms Act 2012". Yeah right. It's to total opposite!

The_Slithy_Tove

loadbang wrote: »

Reading that, it gives private companies the right to enforce tickets, and if the driver isn't known they can charge the owner as they are now responsible.

Wrong on a number of accounts.

It doesn't give any rights to enforce anything. All it does is allow them to pursue the registered keeper if that RK doesn't supply the driver's details. Pursue is not the same as enforce, by a long way.

And it doesn't say anything about the owner at all.

AlexisV

The new Act does not affect contract law in any way.

This is why it's such a nonsense. The Act is worded to cover a genuine charge based on contract law. Contract law says such charges are generally unenforceable because they amount to penalty clauses that are not a genuine reflection of loss incurred through any breach.

The article I linked to talks about enforcing charges that the FAQs then go on to state are unenforceable.

Dave_save

There is a lot of confusion on this. Even though these tickets are not enforcable, it appears that if the RK doesn't pay or respond, the landowner may take court action to recover the costs of the ticket. As I read it, the ticket costs don't have to match the so called 'losses incurred' by the landowner. It appears to give these sharks a bit more bite and confidence that a court would find in their favour.

ManxRed

Dave_save wrote: »

There is a lot of confusion on this. Even though these tickets are not enforcable, it appears that if the RK doesn't pay or respond, the landowner may take court action to recover the costs of the ticket. As I read it, the ticket costs don't have to match the so called 'losses incurred' by the landowner. It appears to give these sharks a bit more bite and confidence that a court would find in their favour.

Which bit is that in?

I can see in the FAQs (third paragraph, answer to Q.1) that the charges must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, so where does it say they don't?