We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Unexpected consequences of yesterdays court case?
da_rule
Posts: 3,618 Forumite
The result in yesterdays court case (looking for a space does not constitute parking) made me think, could this actually be used by PPC's to circumnavigate POPLA?
If, for example, a sign was erected which said something like "time limit for site: 2 hours" rather than "time limit for parking: 2 hours". And the name of the PCN was then changed to say a 'Trespass Charge Notice' or a 'Breach of Contract Charge Notice'. Would the fact that they would be referring to time spent on the site (whether that's parked or just driving around in circles) rather than explicitly to parking take it out of POPLA's jurisdiction? Would the onus then be on the driver/RK to prove that the vehicle was parked to make an appeal to POPLA available? Also, if the PPC's claim damages related to a vehicles presence on land (either as trespass or a breach of contract), does this take it out of the scope of Schedule 4 of POFA as this explicitly relates to parking charges?
It's just an idea and I'm interested in what others think.
If, for example, a sign was erected which said something like "time limit for site: 2 hours" rather than "time limit for parking: 2 hours". And the name of the PCN was then changed to say a 'Trespass Charge Notice' or a 'Breach of Contract Charge Notice'. Would the fact that they would be referring to time spent on the site (whether that's parked or just driving around in circles) rather than explicitly to parking take it out of POPLA's jurisdiction? Would the onus then be on the driver/RK to prove that the vehicle was parked to make an appeal to POPLA available? Also, if the PPC's claim damages related to a vehicles presence on land (either as trespass or a breach of contract), does this take it out of the scope of Schedule 4 of POFA as this explicitly relates to parking charges?
It's just an idea and I'm interested in what others think.
0
Comments
-
But if out of the scope of Sch 4, keeper liability disappears. "My car was on your land, a little green man from Mars was driving"0
-
It doesn't really change anything - it's still just an invoice for a contract that they would need to prove was accepted. And as said above, the contract would be with the driver and not the RK.0
-
-
What you describe is in principle no different to airport road stopping cases. They're not parking either, but PoPLA still hears 'em. On the other hand it's proving impossible to convince the DVLA that if a company requests details for one purpose (enforcing parking charges) and uses those details for a different purpose (enforcing charges for stopping) then that is a blatant breach of the DPA principles.Je suis Charlie.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards