Thread: Registered keeper or driver?

Hi again, written on a car park sign for a retail park is the warning about parking incorrectly etc blah blah blah i notcied some wording may be incorrect and if it is what action could be taken. I took a pic of it but i'll copy word for word....

You are authorised to park at XXXXXX whilst you adhere to the above parking regulations. The registered keeper of any such vehicle who breaches any of the above regulations has deemed to enter into a contract and accept a parking charge notice in the sum of 100 pound.

XXX within its absolute discretion will affix the parking charge notice on the offending vehicle on the day in question or obtain the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA and send the parking charge notice by post at a later date.

Photographs will be taken

parking at drivers own risk

restrictions apply at all times.


I thought that it was only the registered keepers responsibilty if its parked on a public road or car park not a private one????

Similar Threads:

• DVLA Lost new Keeper Doc - Now cant tax Vehicle!
• Owner not driver
• Leased Vehicle fined - Issue with the Registered Keeper
• Failure to notify change of keeper
• Parking fine Not registered keeper??

Total rubbish. You cannot enter into a contract as RK, the terms of which you are unaware of. There is no way that the PPC can demonstrate whether the RK is aware of any contract terms, unless they have clear evidence that the driver and RK are the same person and that the RK saw the signs (highly unlikely).

[quote=Any details of their Data Protection Act registration?[/quote]

No not regarding the ppc company there is a part under "24 hour cctv" which says its controlled by retail parks head office. What can i do to raise the issues to the relevent people?

always check the Data Protection Register entry - the seemingly invariable catch-all they use is along the lines of 'crime detection and prevention'. Most unfortunately for them this doesn't play out to well for them as:-
!) they have ZERO authority to 'detect crime' and act on it apart from reporting to the police - and of course PPCs can never report their 'invoice games' to the police.
2) as far as prevention goes only the presense of the cameras themselves can prevent crime - if anyone takes any notice. processing the images after the vent does not prevent any crime. recent figures have shown this to be true for real surveilance cameras - they prevent squat.
3) - and this is my personal favourite - pursuit of these invoices is clearly a civil matter not a criminal one - that is a slam dunk.

get onto the ICO in every case - over 80 percent of cameras in the UK are not correctly registered. How many PPC ones do you think are ? (clue, think of a number between zero and none....)

Originally Posted by lamma

always check the Data Protection Register entry - the seemingly invariable catch-all they use is along the lines of 'crime detection and prevention'. Most unfortunately for them this doesn't play out to well for them as:-
!) they have ZERO authority to 'detect crime' and act on it apart from reporting to the police - and of course PPCs can never report their 'invoice games' to the police.
2) as far as prevention goes only the presense of the cameras themselves can prevent crime - if anyone takes any notice. processing the images after the vent does not prevent any crime. recent figures have shown this to be true for real surveilance cameras - they prevent squat.
3) - and this is my personal favourite - pursuit of these invoices is clearly a civil matter not a criminal one - that is a slam dunk.

get onto the Information Commissioners Office in every case - over 80 percent of cameras in the UK are not correctly registered. How many PPC ones do you think are ? (clue, think of a number between zero and none....)

Trespass and failing to pay for services provided such as car parking are crimes.

As I said pursuit of these alleged debts is a civil matter not a criminal one so use of cameras registered for crime prevention and detection to pursue a civil debt is a no no. This applies equally to Council decriminalised parking regimes as it does to PPC tricksters so don't be backward in checking out council registrations at the ICO. With TMA 2004 and the resulting 'dash for cash' coupled with the general ineptitude of councils up and down the country it pays to be vigilent.

As for G&Ms new issue. It is hard to know where to start so will keep it simple for new posters and new readers here.
1) Trespass is a Tort and does not fall under criminal law - this has been the clear position in this country for a very very very long time.
2) Failing to pay for services such as car parking (for PPCs) comes under civil law (Contract) - as described in some length and detail in this forum and many other places. Not least of which are the websites of the PPCs themselves !
Council parking is different as there is much statutory coverage - which is why the councils also have to follow the statutes to enforce. hence TROs, correct signage (TSRGD) etc are needed for the council to enforce. In many places councils fall down (and fall down badly) on this and it always worth checking these aspects.

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

Trespass and failing to pay for services provided such as car parking are crimes.

Tresspass is NOT a crime and you cannot be prosecuted for it. Tresspass is a tort, signs that say 'Tresspassers will be prosecuted' are totally wrong (except where the land belongs to the Ministry of Defence).

Should a land owner want to stop someone from tresspassing they first need to have an injunction against that named individual, then and only then has a crime been committed

Mossycat

PS Signs that say Tresspassers will be savaged by Bull do need to be observed though

Originally Posted by Mossycat

Tresspass is NOT a crime and you cannot be prosecuted for it. Tresspass is a tort, signs that say 'Tresspassers will be prosecuted' are totally wrong (except where the land belongs to the Ministry of Defence).

Quite so. However, aggravated trespass is a crime and also any jobsworth PC could find a charge under SOCA.

PS Signs that say Tresspassers will be savaged by Bull do need to be observed though

Then the landowner would be liable in the event of injury - regardless of the sign. The landowner owes a duty of care to all who enter his land; trespasser or otherwise.

Originally Posted by patdavies

Then the landowner would be liable in the event of injury - regardless of the sign. The landowner owes a duty of care to all who enter his land; trespasser or otherwise.

Yeah I was being a bit tongue in cheek there.

Signs that say 'Beware of the Dog' are also ones to watch out for because by putting a sign up that warns people to beware of the dog can be seen as an admission by you that you have a dog that is dangerous.

Mossycat

Originally Posted by emsgeorge

'they have ZERO authority to 'detect crime' and act on it apart from reporting to the police - and of course PPCs can never report their 'invoice games' to the police.'

Lamma, I see what you are saying in this context, but its not just the police who have the authority to detect crime. SOCPA gives US, normal CITIZENS the power to detect and apprehend persons comitting indictable offences. You have exactly the same power as a copper for things like shoplifting / theft / assault etc. You can use force to detain (sec 3 criminal law act 1967).

Onto the parking issue - Making off without payment ???. Nicked several people for it in my job, after them bashing therough the barrier at work's car park. (not to mention crim damage).

their parking charge chase is civil not criminal.

driving off without paying - payment due by an unenforceable alleged contract is not 'due'. and its not thepayment fee they are after. the PPC never write and say 'you owe use 1 quid for your ticket'. they always pursue their 'penalty...

Originally Posted by lamma

their parking charge chase is civil not criminal.

driving off without paying - payment due by an unenforceable alleged contract is not 'due'. and its not thepayment fee they are after. the PPC never write and say 'you owe use 1 quid for your ticket'. they always pursue their 'penalty...

If they wrote to me stating that I owed them the fee (and only the fee) for parking I would happily send it, trouble is most of the PPC's operate on free car parks and therefore have no fee to chase.

Mossycat

Originally Posted by Arnold Hawk

At a guess I would imagine that this company has read forums such as this and decided to try and close the loophole being exploited, which coincidentally does not always work anyway.

I smell a troll :o:o:o

Yes, do not feed.