Protection of freedoms act: Private parking tickets = still unenforceable

Coupon-mad

Thanks, I think it's just the prospect of the whole of 2013, posting the same answer every day yet again...it does get a bit much.

Half_way

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes...and that's why I have been here for years. I do get it and I know a lot of people come here after Googling about private parking tickets.

But when someone actually reads a bit of rubbish on a fake PCN about the 'Protection of Freedoms Act', takes the time to Google search it and waste their time reading it, can they not at least just try searching for posts about that Act when they come here?

Just a search...

I never have much luck with forum searches, dont know why but thats that.
As for those receiving their first ticket/charge notice they will need a lot of help, and hand holding, it may be frustrating, but once youve got there then you have another person understanding the truth about these charge notices, and as a result they may spread the word further.
the more people know about how the private parking industry charge notices work the better.

Myriddin

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Thanks, I think it's just the prospect of the whole of 2013, posting the same answer every day yet again...it does get a bit much.

Perhaps a nice long holiday somewhere in the sun may be what the Dr would order.

Fergie76

Another one is when you give them advice and then they say they are going to do the complete opposite.

Confusing.

BASFORDLAD

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Thanks, I think it's just the prospect of the whole of 2013, posting the same answer every day yet again...it does get a bit much.

That's the problem.......

But my situation is different blah blah when it isn't!!!

hoohoo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Thanks, I think it's just the prospect of the whole of 2013, posting the same answer every day yet again...it does get a bit much.

Perhaps some time in 2013 POPLA will actually make a decision, and we will have some different questions about post-POPLA. Not holding my breath though.

The_Slithy_Tove

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Thanks, I think it's just the prospect of the whole of 2013, posting the same answer every day yet again...it does get a bit much.

Agreed! Even worse that not doing a simple search is to tag to the end of a thread which has ALL the information the new poster needs to know yet another "help, do I pay this" post, when the previous post, even, has the right advice.

Anyway, as to answering the same question again and again, I know you already do as I do, and have a canned answer to copy'n'paste. Here it is:

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.

Stroma

I think the reason why people are asking more and more is that the message is getting across, and people are now looking on the net due to the outrageous amounts the scammers are after, £60 down to about £40 a lot of people will just cough up and count it down to experience. But a £100 down to £60 is excessive and people are now researching. I think it's going to get busier with the advice.

It would help if we could get rid of most of the sticky threads as they have no relevance to the advice, and have a closed one with what tove and coupon says and we simply do as posters on pepipoo do and point to it for all the advice they need, if a link is then added at the bottom to the main forum for current advice then that's it.

bargepole

If we go back to the history of how the POFA came about, it all started when the Government announced their intention to ban clamping on private land.

The BPA made a lot of noise about the alternative, private ticketing, being ineffective because 31% (BPA figure - treat with caution) of private tickets went unpaid, and this figure was increasing by 3% annually due to advice from this and other forums.

The BPA's position was that people were avoiding payment because PPCs had no way of knowing whether or not the registered keeper was driving, and could not therefore pursue court claims in case they had the wrong defendant. But they then made the outrageous claim that between 2% and 5% of tickets ended up in a court claim, which the DVLA interpreted as between 36,000 and 90,000 court claims annually, and the Government was persuaded to include keeper liability in the POFA, partly for this reason and also as a sop for the clamping ban.

The subsequent FOI request showed that only 845 claims were issued in a 12-month period, of which only 49 went to a full hearing. This has caused considerable embarrassment to senior people at the DVLA and DfT, and it may be no coincidence that the DfT guidance document clearly states that sums charged must reflect actual losses and not penalise. The revenge of the Sir Humphreys, perhaps.

Until we find out the outcomes of some POPLA appeals, and any subsequent county court cases brought by PPCs following the rejection of such an appeal, I would not be quite so bombastic in saying that nothing has changed.

One thing we can be sure of, is that PPCs are now granting a much higher percentage of initial appeals than previously (see the many threads where this has happened), and many of them seem reluctant to issue the POPLA appeal code. They may well feel that spending £27+VAT, with no certainty of recovering any income, is a risk not worth taking.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

In other words, a spectacular own goal by the BPA!