Cannot understand sentence in newbie thread

Whatismyname

Hi, Sorry for making a post, I can see you are very busy with more serious situations, but I am having problems understanding the grammar in between the **** below (It sounds like it was written in lawyer language xD ). This does not mean the hire company's name and address does it. Is it just making that details given are of the temporary keeper only and that nothing should imply whom the driver at time was?


If an additional user on the hire received a letter. are they a qualifying temporary keeper to put their name on this or must it be the main temporary keeper (as in whose name is on the hire document)?


This seems like a pretty fundamental thing to get wrong at this early stage, and it seems, if the writer of that sentence didn't think it was important they wouldn't have written it like that.

THE NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER (OR THE HIRER/LESSEE) GOES HERE.

THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

****DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME HERE INSTEAD****, IF YOU ARE NOT THE KEEPER/HIRER/LESSEE. YOU ARE NOT HELPING IF YOU DO THIS WRONG BY APPEALING IN THE WRONG NAME!

The parking company has no idea or no means of getting a personal contact address, so they will only be given an address they already know.

waamo

You need to put the name of the person who hired the vehicle. That person isn't necessarily the driver.

You do not name the driver.

Coupon-mad

I had to write that as people were mucking it up and letting the driver appeal like a complete numpty!

Whatismyname

Does an additional user imply driver status in any way? It would be preferred that all correspondence went to the 'additional user' of the vehicle rather than the main hirer.

KeithP

Whatismyname wrote: »

Does an additional user imply driver status in any way? It would be preferred that all correspondence went to the 'additional user' of the vehicle rather than the main hirer.

You cannot put anyone else 'in the frame' unless you name them as the driver.

The hirer has much more protection that a driver could ever have.

The_Deep

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Rover_Driver

Whatismyname wrote: »

Does an additional user imply driver status in any way? It would be preferred that all correspondence went to the 'additional user' of the vehicle rather than the main hirer.

If the 'additional user' is the person who was the person keeping the vehicle at the time, then naming as the keeper would not be a problem as 'additional user', may be claimed by the parking company that they were the driver at the time, and so be liable.
.
As in your first post, only refer to the Keeper/Hirer/Lessee as if the driver is not identified, if, and only if, the parking company comply with the relevant parts of Sch. 4, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the parking company can claim from the Keeper/Hirer/Lessee - parking companies very rarely comply with those conditions.
So if the driver is not identified, and the Protection of Freedoms Act is not complied with, they have nobody to claim from.

Whatismyname

If hypothetically a hirer has declared a person the driver (as in a pre-written slip at the bottom of a letter saying I declare XXX was the driver), what is the next step from there? Can the credibility of the hirer declaring the driver be put into question?


Is there any regulation in parking guidelines that require signage to be directly illuminated?

waamo

Regulation in an unregulated industry? That's an interesting idea.

Rather than us playing at mind reading and trying to guess what answers you want why not give us the whole story?

What have you sent and to whom?

Rover_Driver

Whatismyname wrote: »

If hypothetically a hirer has declared a person the driver (as in a pre-written slip at the bottom of a letter saying I declare XXX was the driver), what is the next step from there?

If the hirer has identified the driver, then the parking company can claim from that driver, if they don't know who the driver was, then they can claim from the keeper - if they comply with the relevant legislation. And one reason why the parking companies try hard to obtain the details of the driver.

Whatismyname

I made a glancing enquiry (not attempted appeal) to the company's trade body, but noticed that the PPC's trading name was not verbatim to the nearest one on the tradebody's enquiry drop down list (an extra word), which I was thinking may be enough to get it dropped under grounds of their current trading name not being accredited with the 'trade body' (This means they may also have misused the ability to claim registered keeper information from the DVLA).


I did not spill the beans to the trade body on what company it was, as I have heard stories of these companies not being as impartial as they claim to be. Other than this I have contacted the supermarket the car park was adjacent to and they have been more than useless, telling me what I already know, while showing no concern for their possible loss of business.


No contact has been sent to the actual PPC yet.


I am wary of divulging too much linking information here which could go against me should the proceedings go further.