New regulation - Oct 2012

FightOrFlight

I am getting ready to fight or flight my case with Parking Eye. While doing my homework I went through a number of references.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (SCHEDULE 4, Recovery of unpaid parking charges) says:

Para 9 2(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

That line - "the creditor will ... have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid" - particularly looks like legally RK is obliged to repay these monies. Is it correct?

Additionally, I have found that Penalty Charge Notice that describes itself as: "most comprehensive and up to date site on private land enforcement." states:

"Many websites advise motorists to simply not pay private parking tickets as they say they are unenforceable ... from October 1st 2012 the Government has addressed this issue by making the registered keeper of the vehicle responsible regardless of who was driving at the time. If the ticket is not paid within 28 days the registered keeper becomes legally liable for the charge ..."

That, sadly, seems to support my suspicion that I don't stand a chance of fighting.

On the top of it all, Honest John in his Q&A on the matter is also of a view:

"There will no longer be any ‘get out’. Vehicle keepers sent private parking charge notices will be legally liable either to identify the driver responsible or to make the payment."

I know this probably has been chewed up here on many occasions, however... I would really appreciate, if the most experienced minds would offer me their views on what exactly the change in the law means and is it sensible to fight Parking Eye invoice.

Thank you in advance.

tospig

It's good to see you're doing your own research on this rather than simply coming on here without having read anything.

However, the new law changes nothing. Some other good pieces to read are:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4263959

and

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

taffy056

It would be easier to ignore parking eye providing you are the RK of the vehicle , Honest John is wrong it's that simple

tospig

And I forgot to mention, every single other thread on this forum discusses this, so they're worth a read too.

follower

Hi Flight or Flight
I am also (see my thread) in the same situation. I am RK but not the driver at the time in question.
Lots of advice but would love a response from someone in our position post October change who can tell us of the out come rather than what is most likely to happen. I don't like being the first one to find out!

halibut2209

Outcome is identical. Meaningless letters followed by a big festive helping of nothing.

FightOrFlight

Wow, thank you all for your help and replies. I am getting up to speed now, going through some other threads on Parking Eye.

Two quick questions:

A driver have overstayed the free period of parking in a shopping centre. How does one finds out if Parking Eye has an 'interest" in the land / owns part of it, etc. where parking facilities are?

If going through POPLA route, surely when parking for, say three hours, is free how come an hour overstay is suddenly 85 quid? Does POPLA get this argument or not?

Cheers. Still have 10 days to get 'the parking charge discount"... ha-ha-ha...

FightOrFlight

follower wrote: »

Hi Flight or Flight
I am also (see my thread) in the same situation.
...
I don't like being the first one to find out!

Don't worry, follower, let's beat them together. Just don't let that silly thing affect the quality of your life and worry your family.

Keep your spirits up! :j

The_Slithy_Tove

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)

In particular:

FightOrFlight wrote: »

That line - "the creditor will ... have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid" - particularly looks like legally RK is obliged to repay these monies. Is it correct?

No. The "creditor" can "recover" the charges from the RK in exactly the same way as he could "recover" them from the driver in the past. It does not alter the "recoverability" or legitimacy of the claim. Since the number of successful court claims in the past was very close to zero, it just show you how illegitimate they were, and still are.

FightOrFlight wrote: »

Additionally, I have found that Penalty Charge Notice

Whose word was "penalty". If used in any documentation from PE or anyone else, that is fatal. I am guessing it's your incorrect choice of words, though.

FightOrFlight wrote: »

... that describes itself as: "most comprehensive and up to date site on private land enforcement." states:

"Many websites advise motorists to simply not pay private parking tickets as they say they are unenforceable ... from October 1st 2012 the Government has addressed this issue by making the registered keeper of the vehicle responsible regardless of who was driving at the time. If the ticket is not paid within 28 days the registered keeper becomes legally liable for the charge ..."

That, sadly, seems to support my suspicion that I don't stand a chance of fighting.

Wrong - see my text above.

FightOrFlight wrote: »

... On the top of it all, Honest John in his Q&A on the matter is also of a view:

"There will no longer be any ‘get out’. Vehicle keepers sent private parking charge notices will be legally liable either to identify the driver responsible or to make the payment."

HJ is beginning to get it, but not all the way yet. He (and many others) forget the third option which is not to pay and ignore the threats, as the charge is not enforceable.

Remember, the POFA does not alter the enforceablilty of parking charges in any way.

[Deleted User]

What it means is.

the creditor will ... have the right to attempt to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid"

It is still up to the PPC to establish liability, under civil law.

HO87

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

What it means is.

It is still up to the PPC to establish liability, under civil law.

For a start that they a proprietary right or interest in the land. This would normally include owning or having a lease on the land or a licence that granted them certain rights of ownership. Given that many of the companies (supermarkets and retail parks) don't own their car parks in the first place the chances of them having the necessary rights are vanishingly small.

Without these rights they cannot comply with the conditions set out in VCS v HMRC [2012] UKUT 131 and lack sufficient interest to be able to offer a contract to park in the first place let alone issue proceedings in respect of a purported breach of it.