UKPC - Change in law?

thenudeone

Stroma wrote: »

If it went to court only the person who was driving would be liable,

Err. No.

Because the new law specifically states that the RK is liable.

Did you not read my post??

Which part of :

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

do you think that the County Court will ignore, if a case is brought against a keeper?

An Act of Parliament which makes the RK liable over-rides any aspect of common law (including the normal rules of contract law).

There are loads of laws which make people liable for things even though no contract exists, for example The Road Traffic Acts, Occupiers Liability Act 1957, and many others including the law surrounding on-street parking managed by councils, where the RK can be held liable even if he can prove he was on the other side of the world at the time.

If you think that a civil court is going to ignore the specific stated wish of parliament because it doesn't fit in with pre-existing contract law, you really are in cloud cuckoo land. Good luck with that.

SodG24

thenudeone wrote: »

Err. No.

Because the new law specifically states that the RK is liable.

Did you not read my post??

Which part of :

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

do you think that the County Court will ignore, if a case is brought against a keeper?

No it doesn't and precedence has been set by contract law ( which is still in place ) anyway. Stop trying to confuse people.

I'll add this :

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

There is no creditor as no debt has been entered into.

Stroma

It's a penalty, so it's an illegal charge.

But besides that as this so called law hasn't been tested in a court this debt doesn't exist until its been entered there. Contract law which hasn't been changed at all still states that there has got to be consideration in a contract, if the RK is not part of it there can be no consideration.

In regards of can a parking company even legally offer parking in the first place, read vcs v hmrc ! It says that unless a parking company has propriety rights to the car park they cannot offer parking or take anyone to court. As the creditor will always be the person or company who holds those rights.

And I concur stop trying to confuse people with your irrelevant posts, they have very little bearing on the reality of parking and what happens.

ManxRed

You cannot be said to be a creditor, unless the debt has been established in court. At the end of the day this is Civil Law, so any debt between parties needs to be legally established.

You are reading the new legislation in too much isolation. Try reading all of it.

Coupon-mad

thenudeone wrote: »

Err. No.

Because the new law specifically states that the RK is liable.

Did you not read my post??

Which part of :

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

do you think that the County Court will ignore, if a case is brought against a keeper?

An Act of Parliament which makes the RK liable over-rides any aspect of common law (including the normal rules of contract law).

There are loads of laws which make people liable for things even though no contract exists, for example The Road Traffic Acts, Occupiers Liability Act 1957, and many others including the law surrounding on-street parking managed by councils, where the RK can be held liable even if he can prove he was on the other side of the world at the time.

If you think that a civil court is going to ignore the specific stated wish of parliament because it doesn't fit in with pre-existing contract law, you really are in cloud cuckoo land. Good luck with that.

Did you not read my (much earlier) post on my thread here?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4360185

HTH