Yet another parking "charge" thread

The_Slithy_Tove

thenudeone wrote: »

Most seem to have quietly ignored the fact that the law now says:

The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Not at all. If you care to look it has been covered in detail many, many times.

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)

thenudeone wrote: »

Any one who tells you that you can safely ignore a notice regarding parking charges from a landowner or their agent is not giving good advice.

That is nonsense. It is well proven good advice.

cyclonebri1

thenudeone wrote: »

spot the contradiction:





I am absolutely certain to get flamed for telling the truth by the anti-PPC lobby here on MSE.

Most seem to have quietly ignored the fact that the law now says:

The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Now; this is subject to a number of caveats and conditions, and only applies to parking charges (not penalties), and many companies will try to persuade you to pay using underhand tactics, but the landscape really is different now.

Any one who tells you that you can safely ignore a notice regarding parking charges from a landowner or their agent is not giving good advice.

But a landowner cannot impose a "penalty" charge for not parking within a box or any other rule-breaking. Only the parking charge is enforceable in law.

And this is exactly why I phrased to question the way I did, thanks N1, I know and accept that the agent/landowner can charge for parking or it's avoidance, you are correct, those that say they can't have or are simply jumping on the bandwagon without accurately researching.

I didn't want to know is it's ethical or likely to go further in all cases, just if anything has changed from 1/10/12 to affect the fact that they can only charge for avoiding a parking fee, which I suggest is not the case here.

I know the answer thanks to the sensible replies.

Why didn't I post in the correct section?, because I really didn't know there was 1, this was someone asking the question through me. But I do apologise to the pedantic few that feel it a better point scoring opportunity to decry me for that than to actually give the correct info. :T:T:T

Stroma

Yes the landowner can charge for parking if they wish, on avoidance they can only charge for their loss, this will not be some figure plucked out of the air by parking companies, the bpa, popla the dvla and others state that only liquidated losses can be claimed, anything else is unfair illegal penalty.

And as for research the users on here, pepipoo and cag have researched this inside out, we know exactly what's involved and have the court cases defended successfully and can quote case law to reiterate what we are saying. You seem to think that we are saying ignore just for the sake of it. You are very much mistaken, this is a tried and tested method of dealing with parking companies and their agents. The fact that pofa 2012 came into effect on 01/10/12 doesn't make these demands any more enforceable.

In 2011 there were 1.8m fake tickets issued, out of those just 845 claims were raised through the courts, of those just 49 went before a judge and the parking companies won 24 times. These are facts that can be verified. In 2012 we expect the figures to be less since vcs v hmrc which said that parking companies have no legal right to offer parking or make any claims. In 2013 there will be no signifigent changes. The only recourse for motorists and parking companies is the small claims, pofa 2012 is irrelevant as it changes nothing about the enforceability of these demands.

cyclonebri1

Stroma wrote: »

Yes the landowner can charge for parking if they wish, on avoidance they can only charge for their loss, this will not be some figure plucked out of the air by parking companies, the bpa, popla the dvla and others state that only liquidated losses can be claimed, anything else is unfair illegal penalty.

And as for research the users on here, pepipoo and cag have researched this inside out, we know exactly what's involved and have the court cases defended successfully and can quote case law to reiterate what we are saying. You seem to think that we are saying ignore just for the sake of it. You are very much mistaken, this is a tried and tested method of dealing with parking companies and their agents. The fact that pofa 2012 came into effect on 01/10/12 doesn't make these demands any more enforceable.

No I'm not, the fact is she didn't ignore it, check the 1st post.
That effectively puts her on the suckers list, ie, those they do decide to pursue.
You know and I know they can pursue all cases, you are correct most they don't, but given the above........

You also have to accept, and I was trying to avoid saying what my own actions would be (just as you and others have suggested actually), because this is advice for someone else, not for me.
That makes it essential to give correct advice.

The bottom line that I didn't mention but to be honest is critical, was the question I asked my daughter, something like this;

Can you afford the £120 they are asking? answer; Yes
Can you afford the £350 answer again; Yes

Well bloody well stick them out;);)

The_Slithy_Tove

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I didn't want to know is it's ethical or likely to go further in all cases, just if anything has changed from 1/10/12 to affect the fact that they can only charge for avoiding a parking fee, which I suggest is not the case here.

The Protection of Freedoms Act, the relevant piece of which came into effect on 01/10 does not change what can or cannot be charged for in any way at all.

cyclonebri1

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

The Protection of Freedoms Act, the relevant piece of which came into effect on 01/10 does not change what can or cannot be charged for in any way at all.

Yes, I now have that info thanks, quite why it was so difficult for some I don't fully realise;)

atilla

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Next letter it's £100 not the original £50, and yesterday a letter from "Court Proceedings London Ltd" arrives offering to settle for £120 to prevent the £350 likely to be awarded in court.

Any comments based on the anomalies I've detailed would be appreciated.

If i, under the name of scamthe suckers ltd, was to issue you a demand for money for £350 would you pay it??

I think that would be a resounding NO.

So why do you even give Court Proceedings London Ltd the time of day???

A simple check on Companies House sorts your problem. In fact, if that name is correct, you probably have grounds for turning the argument round and threaten them.

Stroma

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

No I'm not, the fact is she didn't ignore it, check the 1st post.
That effectively puts her on the suckers list, ie, those they do decide to pursue.
You know and I know they can pursue all cases, you are correct most they don't, but given the above........

You also have to accept, and I was trying to avoid saying what my own actions would be (just as you and others have suggested actually), because this is advice for someone else, not for me.
That makes it essential to give correct advice.

The bottom line that I didn't mention but to be honest is critical, was the question I asked my daughter, something like this;

Can you afford the £120 they are asking? answer; Yes
Can you afford the £350 answer again; Yes

Well bloody well stick them out;);)

With respects you are implying that we are jumping on the bandwagon and saying ignore without research. I am only replying to what you have written. Honesty has nothing to do with anything, I never advise people to lie but there is no need for anything beyond ignore. The only time that is not advised is if you are not the RK of the vehicle, and a lease/hire company is for example.

And I don't understand the reference of whether you can afford the invoices, that again is not relevant if the invoice is unfair, which all them are in the context of penalising motorists. All these companies just see people as a cash cow to try and exploit.

cyclonebri1

atilla wrote: »

If i, under the name of scamthe suckers ltd, was to issue you a demand for money for £350 would you pay it??

I think that would be a resounding NO.

So why do you even give Court Proceedings London Ltd the time of day???

A simple check on Companies House sorts your problem. In fact, if that name is correct, you probably have grounds for turning the argument round and threaten them.

Read what I said, no, I wouldn't pay it, and yes I have checked their company records, there virtually are none, and only a single director.

But the answer is in my post before, plus the fact that I'm not a 7 month pregnant female.

Posting the question on here is simply to gain a consensus and just to ensure nothing has been missed in my own googling.

atilla

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Read what I said, no, I wouldn't pay it, and yes I have checked their company records, there virtually are none, and only a single director.

But the answer is in my post before, plus the fact that I'm not a 7 month pregnant female.

Posting the question on here is simply to gain a consensus and just to ensure nothing has been missed in my own googling.

Well, something is amiss.
Based on the name you provided on here, that company doesn't appear to exist.