Peel Centre Stockport ANPR

Stroma

That's not entirely accurate, what pofa 2012 does is give keeper liability, what that means if you don't contact them at all then the liability such as it is goes to the RK of the vehicle.

But if you are the RK of the vehicle you can nominate the actual driver of the vehicle if its not yourself. But if you are the driver and RK it makes little difference anyway.

Also pofa 2012 doesn't suddenly make these invoices more enforceable than previously, contract law hasn't changed one iota. Basically the BBC is lazy in their report

trisontana

He we go again ( from a regular poster on here):-

There is a lot of misinformation around concerning the Protection of Freedoms Act. This is largely pedalled by the private parking companies in an attempt to add some kind of legitimacy to their charges, not helped by sloppy and lazy journalism which regurgitates what the parking companies say without checking if it's true or not.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduces the concept of Keeper Liability for private parking charges if the registered keeper fails to divulge who the driver was. That is all.
It does not make parking charges enforceable (or any more enforceable than they were before, which, on the whole is not enforceable at all)
It does not require the registered keeper to name the driver on request - there is no obligation. If the keeper fails to name the driver, the "liability" (such as it is) reverts to the keeper (see previous point). If the driver and keeper are the same person, then there is no difference anyway.
It does not set out any kind of statutory framework for parking charges, they are still based on contract law or trespass, and in that respect nothing has changed
It does not define the wording that must be used to make parking charge notices "legal", "enforceable" or "valid". The Act sets out wording and points that must be included in order for the parking company to be able to apply keeper liability, but using all the correct words does not make the notice any more legally enforceable than it was before (see point 1)
The only thing the Protection of Freedoms Act does is remove from the registered keeper the defence of "I was not the driver." That was always a weak argument. There are far stronger arguments which make such parking charges invalid, all of which still stand.

Coupon-mad

supersideburns wrote: »

Thanks or the advice. it's actually quite comforting knowing they cannot force us to pay.


I was just a little worries as a friend pointed out the law had changed in October 2012 and in this bbc article says

"But landowners are boosted by stronger laws on ticketing, which mean unpaid charges can be claimed from the keeper of the vehicle, as well as the driver."

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19782680

Is it still best to just ignore?

Search the forum for keywords like 'new law' would have found my thread here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4360185

Sorry it's a rant (not at you) but the point being there's tons of info about that 'new law' on this very forum. The only change (in England/Wales only) is that there's a new appeals level called POPLA and a registered keeper can no longer just say 'I wasn't driving.'

Big deal. That's it - apart from private clamping/towing being made criminal.

stockporter

Hi I just got a parking notice today for a 40 min stop at Costa peel centre 7pm at night did not realize I had to pay for ticket this time. Big shock when it came appealed straight away :mad:being the supper efficient person, I have since read all the threads on this should not have appealed, I should just ignore all letters from them even though I admitted to parking and not realizing is this correct just checking ?:money:

Coupon-mad

stockporter wrote: »

Hi I just got a parking notice today for a 40 min stop at Costa peel centre 7pm at night did not realize I had to pay for ticket this time. Big shock when it came appealed straight away :mad:being the supper efficient person, I have since read all the threads on this should not have appealed, I should just ignore all letters from them even though I admitted to parking and not realizing is this correct just checking ?:money:

Please start your own thread - and how about reading current threads as you certainly have not read all of them?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

If you just read some current threads rather than old ones you would see the complete opposite given as advice to what you think you've read. We would not say 'ignore' as a general rule now and if you've appealed already, there is POPLA for you to use next.

If you don't know what POPLA is then you certainly haven't read current threads yet!

Happy reading, please only start your new thread when you have read some others about POPLA and appealing.