Any New laws

The_Slithy_Tove

welder24 wrote: »

Enclosed with a recent private parking fine for parking on Aldi (Private Eye ) was a slip of paper basically stating that the law had changed now giving private parking companies the right to fine you under new goverment guild lines, is this true ?

I can't believe for a minute they actually used the phrases you used, such as "the right to fine you". What are the actual words used, rather than your own paraphrasing?

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)

peter_the_piper

Until the OP comes back with info this thread can't really go anywhere.I look forward to seeing the evidence.

ManxRed

Don't hold your breath anyone.

thenudeone

pogofish wrote: »

And it has been in force since Oct 1st - as the several hundred threads about it in here already attest.

Why on earth didn't you look at any of them to clarify the correct position

I think that question would probably be better asked of the OP rather than someone like me who has pointed out the changes and actually given a link to the legislation.
No-one had answered the OP's question by the time I replied and I AM NOT apologising for trying my best to give an informed and balanced answer.

pogofish wrote: »

before spouting cr!p?

It's clear that you don't agree with the new law. I can't help that. That doesn't make what I said cr?p.

Since the law states: "The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle." which is a direct quote, then that's what the law means.

You can spout off and insult people who try to help people who ask a question as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the keeper CAN now be held liable for unpaid parking charges whereas before they couldn't. FACT. Get used to it.

I also made clear the difference between parking charges and penalties.

The idea that a parking charge is unenforceable is what is rubbish. If you enter a car park which is clearly signed "parking £1 an hour" then you have entered into a legally binding contract to pay that price. All the elements for required for a contract are present, and they always were. Until now it's been "unenforceable" because there was no proof of who actually entered into the contract and therefore the only person who could be identified (the keeper) couldn't be held liable. Now they can.

That doesn't mean that every letter sent by a private parking company is now enforceable. It depends on every other condition and limitation. No doubt many will continue to use strong legalistic language and claim more than the law allows them to.

But you really do have to get used to the idea that things really have changed as a result of the new law. Unfortunately you show no sign of accepting that reality. Perhaps when a few cases trickle through to the courts you will have to accept it? Perhaps not.

So in summary - whilst I've tried to inform as best I can, with evidence; you've just gone off on a huge idealistic rant against a new law without providing any evidence for your "position".

This might make you popular with fellow anti-PPC-ites on these forums but is not helpful in genuinely informing people about the true legal position.

ManxRed

Look out everyone, we got us a live one!

pogofish

thenudeone wrote: »

I AM NOT apologising for trying my best to give an informed and balanced answer.

Fine, then you can apologise for being an ignorant troll instead - or make good use of this forum to actually learn something!

And as for the rest of your summation - PPC's do not seek to recover unpaid charges, they invariably seek unreasonable "penalties" which despite POFA, remain quite illegal and unenforceable.

So my objection to your cr!p still stands!

thenudeone

pogofish wrote: »

And as for the rest of your summation - PPC's do not seek to recover unpaid charges, they invariably seek unreasonable "penalties" which despite POFA, remain quite illegal and unenforceable.

So my objection to your cr!p still stands!

Which part of:

thenudeone wrote: »

the charge must not include an element of penalty

did you have difficulty in understanding?

Sirdan

ManxRed wrote: »

Look out everyone, we got us a live one!

:rotfl:

No doubt this poster (thenudeone) believes that if a sign says

" If you contravene any of these terms and conditions you agree to pay a Parking Charge of £xx"

is a contractual and therefore legally enforceable Parking Charge!!
IT IS NOT

or maybe "Max stay 2 hours , over 2 hours you agree to pay a Parking Charge of £xx"

THAT'S NOT EITHER.

Bottom line is PPCs don't EVER claim valid parking charges they ALWAYS try to claim penalties.
Think about it this way , the Parking Charge(s) are payable to the car park owner .
The PPC provides it's "services" to said car park owner for FREE.
So if the PPC only claims the Parking Charge (passed onto the owner) and it's actual expenses then where is the profit ?
Just in case there is any doubt PPCs only exist to make profit !

Sirdan

thenudeone wrote: »

This might make you popular with fellow anti-PPC-ites on these forums but is not helpful in genuinely informing people about the true legal position.

The true legal position has NOT changed , what PPCs seek to recover regardless of whom they are entitled to recover it from is an unenforceable penalty ...not sometimes ..not even the majority of the time but ALWAYS.

The day someone gets a letter from a PPC claiming :

1) Failed to pay and display, parked for one hour, £1

2) Cost of letter ,envelope,postage £1

3) Additional costs in processing the above payments if made £1

TOTAL £3 NOW!!

isn't ever coming ...:rotfl:

ManxRed

Believe it or not, but I did see someone come on Pepipoo once and they had received a ticket for £10, and when we added it all up, the costs came to something like £7 odd and they were advised to pay it.

I'd never seen one before, and I've not seen one since.

Out of the umpty ump thousand tickets I've seen on here and other forums in the last five years they've ALL been contractual penalties or nonsense trespass damages, issued by companies who have no occupational right to offer parking contracts in the first place.

Lord knows how the POFA can change that.