Tesco's Parking Charge Notice

matthewoutram

.








.

Guys_Dad

Lots of similar questions/stories on this forum already. You might want to read through a few while waiting for someone to reply specifically to your question.

matthewoutram

.








.

halibut2209

The only thing that has changed is that the PPCs can take the Registered Keeper to court if they don't name the driver. But they still won't do this because the invoices are still just as non-enforceable.

So simply ignore the parasites, but feel free to complain to Tesco

nickcc

Advice still the same, ignore. As post above, crossed over

edward123

matthewoutram wrote: »

Hello Guys Dad - I've been having a read but some of the threads are old now and someone told me the law changed on 1st October!

Matt.

The only thing that changed on Oct 1st(apart from clamping/blocking on private property being banned) was that the Registered Keeper can be pursued for payment if the drivers details are not given to the private parking company. However, their fake invoices are still fake invoices and they and any following empty threats can be safely ignored.

Oh, beaten to it.

taffy056

Ignore TPS who infest Tesco's in your area, they have no legal right to issue penalties which this is, no matter what you did you are a customer of Tesco, so there is no loss to the retailer. TPS are vermin like the rest of parking companies, they prey on people for minor things like a wheel touching a line, or for going to a cashpoint that is across the road or a myriad other things that has no bearing on the penalty they issue.

The advice providing you are the RK of the vehicle is to ignore them

halibut2209

mwahahahaha!

matthewoutram

.









.

halibut2209

Pretty much! You get some free festive* toilet paper

*other faith-based holidays are available

The_Slithy_Tove

matthewoutram wrote: »

I do not understand what this change in law was - what do you mean "pursue the registered keeper"? - that is me. I am him.

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. So, in your case, the nw law MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.

• 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)