Civil Parking Charge Notice at Lidl

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

No the RK doesn't have to do that, because sometimes they will not be aware on who is driving, for example if its a hired/leased car where there could be multiple drivers.

I was looking at the Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:
Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

There is a specific section on hire cars

A person or organisation hiring a vehicle from a hire company is responsible for any parking charges during the hire period if they have signed an agreement with the hire company accepting liability. In those circumstances the hire company cannot be liable for unpaid parking charges during the period of hire if they provide a copy of the relevant hire agreement documents to the landholder within 28 days of receiving a notice to keeper in the post.

Otherwise, the guidance reads

Schedule 4 describes what a notice sent by post to the vehicle keeper must contain and how it must be served. The contents of the notice to the keeper are essentially the same as a notice to the driver, but must invite the registered keeper either to pay the unpaid parking charges or, if the registered keeper was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the parking contravention, give the landholder the name of the driver and a current address for service.

So, being pedantic, as I have been accused of before, it is the duty of the RK to inform who was in possession of the vehicle at the time.

On another worrying note, all the advice being given re "only the landowner can pursue losses" etc seem to be redefined in this guidance and the term "land holder" is defined and used throughout. This may go some way as to explaining why Shona is not accepting defences based upon the PPC is not the landowner and therefore has no rights to pursue charges.

The land holder, on the other hand, has to show that they have any rights to raise PCNs and any appeal, either to the PPC, or POPLA, should ask the PPC to first of all state if they are the landowner and, if not, then please inform appellant what rights as a land holder the PPC has been granted by the land owner.

spacey2012

The bigger issue, is what capacity is the PPC acting as in pursuing charges/damages .
They can not act as litigant in person in court proceedings on behalf of a land title holder as pointed out to them by a Upper Court judge.

Guys_Dad

spacey2012 wrote: »

The bigger issue, is what capacity is the PPC acting as in pursuing charges/damages .
They can not act as litigant in person in court proceedings on behalf of a land title holder as pointed out to them by a Upper Court judge.

From my link above

1. Definition of “landholder”

1.1 Where a private landowner chooses to offer or restrict parking on his/her land, he or she may make arrangements for an agent to manage and operate the land, including charging drivers for breaking parking conditions. This guide uses the term “landholder” to mean either a private landowner or an agent (or agents) properly authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking on the land in question.

The relevant parts of the Act are:
...........................................................
 Section 56 and Schedule 4, which allows landholders to pursue “keeper liability” in relation to the recovery of unpaid parking charges on private land providing certain conditions are met.

So, from these Guidance notes at https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ng-charges.pdf this seems to be at odds with the case to which you refer.

The big question now is does this 2012 Act negate any pre 2012 decisions in light of the new legislation? In particular Schedule 4 of the Act where reference to "creditor" and "person acting for Creditor" arise.

Stroma

Guys_Dad wrote: »

So, being pedantic, as I have been accused of before, it is the duty of the RK to inform who was in possession of the vehicle at the time.

There is no such duty at all, there is an invitation to name the driver, but you are not under any duty to name anyone.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

On another worrying note, all the advice being given re "only the landowner can pursue losses" etc seem to be redefined in this guidance and the term "land holder" is defined and used throughout. This may go some way as to explaining why Shona is not accepting defences based upon the PPC is not the landowner and therefore has no rights to pursue charges.

Why is it a worry ? The decisions of popla mean nothing, and their outcomes will never hold any merit in court. The two aspects is this, popla have decided that an alleged breach of contract is above a leaseholder/owner rights to occupy their own land? The second one is defined by VCS -v- HMRC 2012 and is case law.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The land holder, on the other hand, has to show that they have any rights to raise PCNs and any appeal, either to the PPC, or POPLA, should ask the PPC to first of all state if they are the landowner and, if not, then please inform appellant what rights as a land holder the PPC has been granted by the land owner.

No matter what rights have been given, if they are not holding propriety rights or ownership they cannot legally offer parking, therefore cannot have a contract with the motorist.

Stroma

Guys_Dad wrote: »

From my link above

1. Definition of “landholder”

1.1 Where a private landowner chooses to offer or restrict parking on his/her land, he or she may make arrangements for an agent to manage and operate the land, including charging drivers for breaking parking conditions. This guide uses the term “landholder” to mean either a private landowner or an agent (or agents) properly authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking on the land in question.

The relevant parts of the Act are:
...........................................................
 Section 56 and Schedule 4, which allows landholders to pursue “keeper liability” in relation to the recovery of unpaid parking charges on private land providing certain conditions are met.

So, from these Guidance notes at https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ng-charges.pdf this seems to be at odds with the case to which you refer.

The big question now is does this 2012 Act negate any pre 2012 decisions in light of the new legislation?

And you seriously think that retailers will now start pursuing their customers for an alleged breach of contract ? They are struggling enough as it is without trying to screw what little custom they have without going after legitimate clients.

Landowners as in commercial property owners don't give a monkeys about parking or the issues around it, all they are interested in is the rent is paid each quarter, most of these companies are simply looking at returns on investment. They are not concerned about individual companies or their customers.

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

And you seriously think that retailers will now start pursuing their customers for an alleged breach of contract ? They are struggling enough as it is without trying to screw what little custom they have without going after legitimate clients.

Landowners as in commercial property owners don't give a monkeys about parking or the issues around it, all they are interested in is the rent is paid each quarter, most of these companies are simply looking at returns on investment. They are not concerned about individual companies or their customers.

That's not what I or the quotes have said. The guidlelines use the word landholder which is defined as either a private landowner or an agent (or agents) properly authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking on the land in question.

In broad terms, that means a properly authorised PPC can be a landholder. or, in the terms of the act, even a creditor.

Now if the Lidls of this world had a "limited action" contract such as the Somerfield - Parking Eye contract, of course you are right. But if they have signed a loose contract giving much greater rights to the PPC, then the PPC comes under the definition of landholder (not landowner).

Stroma

Guys_Dad wrote: »

That's not what I or the quotes have said. The guidlelines use the word landholder which is defined as either a private landowner or an agent (or agents) properly authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking on the land in question.

In broad terms, that means a properly authorised PPC can be a landholder. or, in the terms of the act, even a creditor.

Now if the Lidls of this world had a "limited action" contract such as the Somerfield - Parking Eye contract, of course you are right. But if they have signed a loose contract giving much greater rights to the PPC, then the PPC comes under the definition of landholder (not landowner).

They can't authorise anyone, this is what the judge said about VCS -v- Ibbotson

JUDGE MciLWAINE: No, no, no. I am not criticising you, but it is illegal to act as an advocate for another party when you do not have a right of audience. In any event, you are not guilty of that today because you have brought the action in your own names and your advocate has come today impeccably prepared except for the issues that I really need to get to and I cmmot believe that this has not been tested somewhere, and you are the ones here today. It is not for Mr Ibbotson to disprove, it is for you to prove, and I am not going to adjourn this and bring this back again, so let me just go through it again so that we are absolutely clear.

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

There is no such duty at all, there is an invitation to name the driver, but you are not under any duty to name anyone.

Quite right. But if you don't then the liability lies with the keeper. The actual wording of the ACT requires the keeper to notify the claimant if they want to get off the hook.

Why is it a worry ? The decisions of popla mean nothing, and their outcomes will never hold any merit in court. The two aspects is this, popla have decided that an alleged breach of contract is above a leaseholder/owner rights to occupy their own land? The second one is defined by VCS -v- HMRC 2012 and is case law.

That is true. But the Protection of Freedoms Act came in subsequent to VCS -v- HMRC 2012 and I am not sufficiently legally trained to know whether or not this has redefined who has the right to pursue a parking charge. The courts are persuaded by the intent of any legislation and the guidelines are crystal clear about the intent of the ACT. I quote again

Where a private landowner chooses to offer or restrict parking on his/her land, he or she may make arrangements for an agent to manage and operate the land, including charging drivers for breaking parking conditions. This guide uses the term “landholder” to mean either a private landowner or an agent (or agents) properly authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking on the land in question.

No matter what rights have been given, if they are not holding propriety rights or ownership they cannot legally offer parking, therefore cannot have a contract with the motorist.

I hope you are right. I have every respect for the views of the regulars on here and support your endeavours. I hope VCS lose any appeal. I am on your side. But an objective look at the Act and Guidelines indicate otherwise to me, possibly to re-balance the abolition of clamping. How do you read the extracts from the guidance then?

Stroma

Can I suggest you create another thread to discuss as its seriously taking this one off track, and its not really relevant to the OP question.

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

They can't authorise anyone, this is what the judge said about VCS -v- Ibbotson

JUDGE MciLWAINE: No, no, no. I am not criticising you, but it is illegal to act as an advocate for another party when you do not have a right of audience. In any event, you are not guilty of that today because you have brought the action in your own names and your advocate has come today impeccably prepared except for the issues that I really need to get to and I cmmot believe that this has not been tested somewhere, and you are the ones here today. It is not for Mr Ibbotson to disprove, it is for you to prove, and I am not going to adjourn this and bring this back again, so let me just go through it again so that we are absolutely clear.

That isn't actually all that he said and you need to add the rest

JUDGE MciLWAINE.....the point also is I am just quietly looking through this as you have spoken to see where there is an assignment to permit Vehicle Control Services Limited to sue individuals who have trespassed on the land belonging to a customer. I do not quite see it. This is not a straightforward case, is it? Can you help me on that point?

MISS COATES: What is your question, sir?
JUDGE MciLWAINE: Where is it in this contract set out that you have the right when there is a trespass or a breach of contract by Mr Ibbotson with Wickes or a trespass on Wickes' property, where
have they assigned you the right to issue proceedings in your own name for a breach of contract against Mr Ibbotson?

MISS COATES: It is not actually written in the contract. It is part of the service that we offer...................

...........................JUDGE MciLWAINE: Thank you. I will come to it in a second. Where does it say that in the contract you are authorised to issue proceedings?
MISS COATES: It does not, sir.

JUDGE MciLW AINE: Right, in which case this case is struck out, and I will tell you why it is struck out, because of the following, and I am not hearing any more evidence......................................



If you read the transcript of the case, you will see that it is because VCS did not have specific authority from Wickes to issue proceedings in their own name



If the contract had contained that clause, the judge would not have found for Mr Ibbotson. Nowhere did the judge say that only a landowner can pursue a charge or issue proceedings. His reasons for striking out the case are very clear and it all hinges on the terms of the contract with Wickes.

This is why I say that these are the key to any appeal or court case. The "You can't do anything because you are not the landowner" is, frankly, incorrect as a bald statement.