New Advice For Private Tickets After 1st Oct

bargepole

Jenks308win wrote: »

. We wonder if the new ruling (1st October) whereby the Registered keeper (my wife) becomes liable instead of the driver would apply to us. ...

If your "ticket" was issued on 12 Sept, the new law won't apply, as it's been clearly stated many times in this and other threads, it is not retrospective.

Either way, you can safely ignore their toilet paper.

BASFORDLAD

Jenks308win wrote: »

Forgive me if I am asking a question that has already been asked, and replied to. My head is spinning from all the posts I have read

My wife received a Parking Eye Parking charge notice stating that an alleged parking infringement occurred on 12th September 2012. Thus far we have ignored all letters from Parking Eye. We wonder if the new ruling (1st October) whereby the Registered keeper (my wife) becomes liable instead of the driver would apply to us. Where do we stand?

Thanks

Jenks

Also your wrong, the RK does not become liable instead of the driver.....

Jenks308win

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Also your wrong, the RK does not become liable instead of the driver.....

Basfordlad..


Also your wrong, the RK does not become liable instead of the driver....



Well you may be right in what you say above.. but, the AA say this..



If you were not the driver at the time but the driver does not pay, for example, if the parking enforcement company rejects a challenge, or you do not name the driver, then you as the keeper becomes liable for the parking charge notice.

Which leads me to believe that if the RK was not prepared to reveal who was the driver the driver at the time. then the RK does become liable for the alleged breach of contract.

As a new user of the forum I can't post a link to the AA Parking on private land document. Pretty easy to find if you wish to.

Jenks

SodG24

The AA are wrong and given their huge legal resources it's shameful they've given such shoddy advice.

If the PPC don't know who the driver was then they can ask the RK - it doesn't make the RK liable for the invoice. Besides, given the PPC have no legal right to invoice either the driver or the RK it all becomes rather academic.

ManxRed

That's appalling from the AA. Not even close.

edward123

ManxRed wrote: »

That's appalling from the AA. Not even close.

Would it be correct then, just asking for clarification, that the PPC can 'pursue' the RK for their so-called 'charge' (not that the RK becomes "liable") rather than the driver if the RK, who the PPC asks, declines to reveal who the driver was? If so is this the case only since Oct 1st? Thanks.

bargepole

edward123 wrote: »

Would it be correct then, just asking for clarification, that the PPC can 'pursue' the RK for their so-called 'charge' (not that the RK becomes "liable") rather than the driver if the RK, who the PPC asks, declines to reveal who the driver was? If so is this the case only since Oct 1st? Thanks.

Exactly right. And they can only pursue for "legitimate parking charges", which are not defined in the legislation. But the DfT guidelines say that the charges must be "genuine pre-estimates of loss" and not penalties, which is where the whole thing starts to unravel.

ManxRed

And if they DO know who the driver was, and the driver refuses to pay, they cannot then go back to the RK and make them liable.

edward123

bargepole wrote: »

Exactly right. And they can only pursue for "legitimate parking charges", which are not defined in the legislation. But the DfT guidelines say that the charges must be "genuine pre-estimates of loss" and not penalties, which is where the whole thing starts to unravel.

Got it, finally . What the PPC ought to do then is simply reduce their extortionate 'charge' to something that is legitimate and genuine? If I over stayed in a car park for 10 mins I would not mind paying something. But not a lot. Pennies. But then I suppose there would be no profit for them. This whole PPC thing stinks.

edward123

ManxRed wrote: »

And if they DO know who the driver was, and the driver refuses to pay, they cannot then go back to the RK and make them liable.

I once had a lodger, a German national. She stayed for 6 months studying then returned home. She drove my car twice(I was a passenger) If the dastardly crime, involving a PPC's PCN, was committed in this situation and the PPC was given this persons name and present residence(Germany), when the PPC enquired she had moved back home, what would the PPC do?
And not that I wish to promote lies but what would the PPC do if someone stated something like this though it not being true? How would they know? Just thinking on my feet! Sorry if these thoughts are sillyish. I know its simple, just to ignore the PPC, I'm just thinking things up that could occur.