EPC Plc fine from Hungry

bazster wrote: »

Redx, you seem to be totally confused about whether you are making a point about morality or a point about legalities.

I agree that people should take responsibility for their own actions. That is totally and utterly not the same as being responsible for someone else's actions simply because they were temporarily in possession of my property.

From the point of view of moral responsibility I couldn't give a stuff what PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 says. If someone borrows my car and parks it where they shouldn't I am not responsible for their actions, and the law that tries to make me liable (not the same as "responsible") is a very bad law (indeed an immoral law).

no , I am not confused, just dont have the legal training to accurately put my thoughts into words without having them jumped on by other people like yourself

I agree that in this case POFA 2012 is a bad law, hence why I wrote to my MP about it, but dont even know if I put it into the correct words for him or the civil service either

yes I agree that people should be responsible for their own actions, which is what I base my premise on

but there are laws that force owners (of whatever) to take reponsibility or liabilty or whatever the words are

be it the dangerous dogs act which they amended to cover dogs on private land (like in the home) , be it guns (where the gun owner is responsible under a duty of care to try to ensure the guns dont fall into the wrong hands) , be it if a roof tile or pane of glass blows off your building and injures somebody who then sues you , be it hitting a jaywalker and you getting a bill for the ambulance, even though its not your fault (yes this has happened to me)

http://www.nawt.org.uk/advice/changes-dangerous-dogs-act-advice-owners

http://www.trafficaccidentadvice.co.uk/who-pays-for-hospital-treatment-after-accident.html

I agree I may not be phrasing it all correctly but I know what I mean, and when I signed up here I wasnt told I had to be an expert in law that could beat Judge Moloney or Judge Rinder in a court of law

perhaps I believed in morality and people being responsible for their own actions, but have since come to realise that there are laws that place the onus on the owner , homeowner or business or whatever it may be

for example, on watchdog it showed that business owner washing down a roof with his employee, he was prosecuted by the HSE due to not taking preventative action when his employee was stood on the bungalow with a power washer hosing down the roof , as he should have stopped the whole business until they both complied with health and safety, so he cannot say that if the employee fell off that roof and injured himself its the empoyees responsibility and he isnt liable , but he also didnt have public liability insurance never mind employee insurance, so he was liable as a judge said when he was prosecuted by the HSE and both him and his firm were punished

http://press.hse.gov.uk/2014/roofing-firm-in-court-following-bbc-watchdog-probe/

I think what you need to realise is that not everybody is trained in all the correct words to use and this is a forum, not a court of law

my opinion was valid, even if it doesnt quite stand up in a court of law, or your home court of law - we are not all barristers

my comments are in relation to what you said here

Originally Posted by jmhansford
Thanks both for the reply.

I cannot see how any law can hold me liable for an action I did not commit and can prove I did not commit.

Cheers,

and are examples of scenarios where the person who committed the action may be responsible, but you as owner or keeper have the ultimate responsibility in certain cases even if you did not commit the contravention , so as you opened that particular door I went through it and rebutted your statement , same as coupon-mad did, but nobody has complained about her rebuttals, only mine

well in this country the law does exactly that with private parking tickets and real Council ones (keeper liability applies in England/Wales, even if not driving).

I know this happened in Hungary according to your post but they may be trying to transfer it to the UK and use english laws, hence my reply and some other replies too

this would be POFA 2012 if they are trying to make the RK liable for this contravention (you if you are the RK)

so as I said earlier, if this was Meadowhall in Sheffield , or the Peel Centre in Stockport then YOU as RK are held to be liable , IF you dont dob the driver in, and its been that way for 2 years

this can be true even if you do not drive, have no driving license and were actually on Holiday in Hungary at the time of the contravention, as RK you are held liable in england or wales under POFA 2012

now if you chose to dispute this in a court of law, by all means do so, then a judge can decide

if we assume some debt collector (EPC = Euro Parking Collection Plc) is trying to chase up an alleged foreign debt owned by this driver, they may not know the driver so may be trying it on with the RK under POFA 2012 if you are in england or wales

so clearly EPC have got the RK details from the DVLA in Swansea and sent you an invoice for this, so they are doing this trying to invoke POFA 2012 , you believe POFA 2012 does not apply, only a court of law can decide

so I am afraid that in law you may be held accountable, despite your protests , which my other examples were designed to show that it happens a lot in various walks of life, be it property owners , dog owners, parents, or the RK of a vehicle in england or wales

so it could be argued by EPC that this is irrelevant under POFA 2012

Incidentally - the reason I was not there and driving was I was looking after my own mother-in-law who had had a stroke 4 days earlier. I was not on holiday. I

as for buildings etc, you are ultimately responsible if you "employ" a friend, even at mates rates

see one debate here from google

http://forum.building.co.uk/forums/printthread.php?tid=3527

working at height regs, public liability insurance, all sorts of reason why YOU the homeowner have to take ultimate responsibility for both your friends safety (or your own), plus that of anyone else in the vicinity - but thats another topic and lengthy argument

I suppose that what this really means is it depends which laws they are trying to invoke, if the vehicle was moving or parked , all manner of ifs and buts

many UK companies like VCS and APCOA will try it on with moving violations or unpaid charges on roads like JLA in liverpool, RHA in Doncaster , Luton airport , Birmingham airport , so they try it on using POFA 2012 even if nobody actually parked in a car park but was on a road

if EPC were trying it on using POFA 2012 , this makes the keeper liable if they dont dob the driver in (in england and wales) if certain conditions are met whereas in scotland and N.I. they can only pursue the driver

as you have posted on the parking forum then it could have been this scenario they are invoking, but with your above copy and paste it seems they may be using some other law that applies to non-parking issues , be it in europe and not in the UK

so according to their scenario the RK is liable even though your sweeping statement says otherwise, only a judge can actually decide as it all depends on the charge or invoice and the contravention , providing he or she or we knew which law they are actually applying, which you have not mentioned yet

but as you can see, its not even clear cut with parking issues as they try to use one law for a different purpose (as with the roads at the airports)

I suppose it all depends which law they are imposing for this contravention, which we assume is not paying a toll fee on a toll road in Hungary ?

they seem to feel its the RK responsibility which is why they contacted the dvla, got the RK details and wrote to you

clearly you both cannot be right, either you are right, or they are

and yes, even the parking companies prefer to chase the RK as its easier to look up on a database, thats the way it is for these issues and POFA 2012 made this worse for parking issues because you could have been deemed responsible and liable if whilst looking after this relative a friend or family member took your car, parked at Willen Lakes and didnt pay , then you would get an NTK in the post as RK , even if you dont drive and dont have a driving license and werent there , making YOU liable under POFA 2012

you can also see examples of this POFA liability or not in this thread here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5072425

different scenario, but they are being advised to stay in KEEPER mode as POFA 2012 was breached so as KEEPER they are not liable (only the driver is liable there) and even the solicitors are getting it wrong whereas you would expect that they would understand the rules and laws better than any parking company , also note there is no appeals system there either