parking charge notice - for over free time

ManxRed

You might think the Protection of Freedoms Act means you should pay, but you'd be wrong.

All the new law does is allow the parking company to request that the Registered Keeper pay any charges that would have been due from the driver (there's your first clue that all's not right) if the parking company are not made aware of who the driver is within 28 days of their request for the driver's details.

And that's it.

The tickets are still unenforceable for all the usual reasons (the PPC do not hold sufficient rights over the land to make an offer of parking services with the driver, the charge is unrepresentative of actual losses, etc...).

You should ignore this and all the stupid threatening foillow-up letters.

Orford

khearn wrote: »

All the forums say ignore it, but the new law that came in last October makes me think I should pay.

The Protection of Freedoms Act changes nothing, the advice is still ignore.

The_Slithy_Tove

khearn wrote: »

All the forums say ignore it, but the new law that came in last October makes me think I should pay.

Why? What do you think that law says which suddenly makes you want to dish over your hard earned cash to a bunch of low-life scammers?

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.

khearn

Hi all - thanks for your replies. Sorry, I am new to this and really have no idea about what this all means so your help is really appreciated!

The reason I was led to believe I should pay is after reading the MSE pages as well as the AA which ultimately advise that you should pay if you overstay. Sorry I can't post URLs on here.

There is a sign at the car park which (although is out of date) does state that overstay is liable to charges. Why are these sometimes enforceable (according to MSE etc) and sometime not?

trisontana

The only time they would be enforceable is if they are just claiming for the actual loss suffered by the landowner and not dome imaginary figure dreamt up by the parking company that bears no relation to that true loss.

khearn

The AA website says

(and sorry I can't post a URL but it's got w's at the front and html at the end):
theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/parking-tickets-private-land

How much can they charge you?

From 1 October the normal maximum sum a BPA member will demand for a breach of parking conditions is £100 which must be discounted by up to 40% for prompt payment.

What does this mean? Am i 'in a contract' for parking in an area that is signposted? And in which case, am I in breach of contract for parking 6 minutes over the time limit? If this is wrong, why are the AA posting this advice?!

trisontana

Note the word "maximum". By law the actual figure that can be demanded is the actual loss suffered by the landowner. In my opinion this is bad advice by the AA and it seems they have just repeated the press release sent out by the BPA.

khearn

Thanks Trisontana. That makes sense. £100 for 6 minutes works out £1,000 per hour! I don't think they can justify that!

I was toying with writing back to say this, but everyone seems to advise just to ignore it. I presume they can't increase the charge if I don't respond so it's worth staying quiet.

Sorry if I sound a bit weak - just worried about being dragged into a legal thing over such a small fine that might end up costing me more. I just can't believe these companies are allowed to exist. The only advise I've had is pre-October examples where they have faded away, but wasn't sure if things had changed. Plus the advice on various sites isn't exactly clear!"

trisontana

Stop calling it a fine. It's not, it's just an unenforceable invoice.

khearn

Sorry - yes the charge. How are these companies allowed to operate?! Surely this charge is illegal?