Registered Keeper responsibility to PPC's

[esmerobbo]

Not good news!

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/146/11146.37-41.html#j800pge

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/146/11146.101-107.html#j800s

[crem]

Very not good news

[Surfer01]

I can't see how this can become law unless there are laws regarding the display of a full set of T & Cs easily visible. I doubt if this could be applied to supermarket car parks etc as the Land owner is inviting you onto their property which then contradicts the proposed law. Anyway has to be psssed by House of Laws first. Can it over ride the criminal offence of trespass?

[afcwben]

but they talk about parking on "relevant land" in the description and relevant land being covered by the RTA or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

[SURFBOY]

If, (as i have read it in the publication), they have to actualy give the driver of the car a notice (ticket) at the actual time of the infringement, then that would make all the supermarket ANPR camera systems useless unless they were actualy backed up with an individual placing tickets at the said time of infringement. Entry and exit cameras would be useless.

[esmerobbo]

Paragraph 205 quotes!

 

Whilst the landowner (or his or her agent) may seek to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper, as the law is currently understood to stand, any parking contract will be between the driver of a vehicle and the parking provider and accordingly the keeper may not be liable for the charges incurred if he or she was not the driver.

 

Doesn't change much then does it?

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c.../en/11146en.pdf

[SURFBOY]

Seems like it will create some confusion then!

I can see some letters from PPC being very selective which parts they use.

[Surfer01]

Paragraph 205 quotes!

 

Whilst the landowner (or his or her agent) may seek to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper, as the law is currently understood to stand, any parking contract will be between the driver of a vehicle and the parking provider and accordingly the keeper may not be liable for the charges incurred if he or she was not the driver.

 

Doesn't change much then does it?

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c.../en/11146en.pdf

My thoughts exactly and they still cannot issue a penalty charge notice plus there is not law forcing you to identify the driver of the vehicle on private property as that could open a real can of worms!

 

I don't think any PPC would like a test case in case they lose which woudl eb very bad for them so we can continue to ignore! Nothing changes.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Surfer01

[tomtubby]

Seems like it will create some confusion then!

I can see some letters from PPC being very selective which parts they use.

 

I would have hoped that the new Government would have made their most important new Bill easy to understand. But they haven't.

 

It would indeed appear that the payment can be sought against the keeper BUT....

 

 

.....this will apply only if a request for payment was made when the parking incident took place.......

[Michael Browne]

Paragraph 205 quotes!

 

Whilst the landowner (or his or her agent) may seek to recover unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper, as the law is currently understood to stand, any parking contract will be between the driver of a vehicle and the parking provider and accordingly the keeper may not be liable for the charges incurred if he or she was not the driver.

 

Doesn't change much then does it?

 

This is part of the explanatory notes (not the bill itself), which merely sets out the existing situation. The bill itself shifts responsibility (with ceratin provisos) to the RK

[green_and_mean]

Its actually quite funny rather than cut down PPCs income it could turn out to be a licence to print money, you just have to love the Tories.

[Michael Browne]

Its actually quite funny rather than cut down PPCs income it could turn out to be a licence to print money, you just have to love the Tories.

Absolutely, the clampers will move seamlessly into private parking. No maximum fee, no independent appeal/adjudication, no regulations for signage/markings - a PPC dream come true.

[green_and_mean]

Absolutely, the clampers will move seamlessly into private parking. No maximum fee, no independent appeal/adjudication, no regulations for signage/markings - a PPC dream come true.

 

The cannot even licence it as they are scrapping the SIA in order to 'save money'.

[Al27]

After reading through the Bill, I don't see how anything will change.

 

The contract still needs to enforceable under contract law. For 'relevant contract' (their words), read 'enforceable contract'. The only difference is if a PPC is daft enough to take the RK to court, the first hurdle for them about driver ID is just removed.

 

It just means RKs will be getting letters which happily proclaim "YOU ARE LIABLE UNDER THE FREEDOM ACT 2011".

 

The junk can then just be ignored as usual.

 

Of course, the PPCs will be happy out their because they can dupe keepers into paying when they don't have to.

 

Edit - email an MP who has knowledge of these things - Ann McGuire of Stirling: http://www.annemcguiremp.org.uk/

Edited February 11, 2011 by Al27

[patdavies]

The Bill (sched. 4 1.1.a) clearly defines "relevant land" in sched. 4 3.1.

 

The provision only applies to land under statute and not private land. I suspect the reason is enable enforcement of non-decriminalised parking penalties on RKs instead of drivers - to parallel the situation across both crim and decrim parking.

 

Remember that there is not requirement for a vehicle on private land to be registered and thus have a registered keeper.

[green_and_mean]

The Bill (sched. 4 1.1.a) clearly defines "relevant land" in sched. 4 3.1.

 

The provision only applies to land under statute and not private land. I suspect the reason is enable enforcement of non-decriminalised parking penalties on RKs instead of drivers - to parallel the situation across both crim and decrim parking.

 

Remember that there is not requirement for a vehicle on private land to be registered and thus have a registered keeper.

 

I think if you read it properly it says 'other' than land covered by statute.

[Michael Browne]

3 (1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or

below ground level) other than—

(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning

of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

© any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the

parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

[mightymouse_69]

After reading through the Bill, I don't see how anything will change.

 

The contract still needs to enforceable under contract law. For 'relevant contract' (their words), read 'enforceable contract'. The only difference is if a PPC is daft enough to take the RK to court, the first hurdle for them about driver ID is just removed.]

 

There could be all sorts of submissions on this point.

 

On the whole, a valid contract is entered into when it comes to PPCs. The main issue is the amount of money that the PPC seeks to recover. The act does not really set a maximum figure, it merely states that no more than is stated in the "notice to driver" can be recovered. Considering this, it could be argued that the act is legitimising what some have regarded as punitive damages.

[Al27]

The Act can't set a figure without stating how the figure will be legitimised. Which is why it just speaks of the 'contract.'

 

Regardless of the subject matter, who on earth drafted this bill? It's a fudge, full of holes!

[Glitch]

On a more positive note surely it will stop the theft and extortion in the guise of immobilisation and towing. That is surely the main change that the bill is introducing. Pursuing the RK doesn't seem to get around the law of contract.

 

In my own case would I have to pay £625 to get my car back, or would I be able to force them to take me to court and dispute (presumably a much lesser) fee in front of a judge? If the PPC had just issued a ticket I would still have £625 +costs in my bank account.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Glitch
removed unwanted text

[Al27]

It's not necessarily a bad thing. It saves a lot of messing about and the nitty gritty of contract law can be dealt with from the off. You'd also have both the driver and the keeper in court which would help those who aren't as articulate in a hearing and give the PPC egotist opposite a bit more of a challenge.

 

A clamping ban and PPC tickets remain as unenforceable as ever. I'm happy with that!

[green_and_mean]

It's not necessarily a bad thing. It saves a lot of messing about and the nitty gritty of contract law can be dealt with from the off. You'd also have both the driver and the keeper in court which would help those who aren't as articulate in a hearing and give the PPC egotist opposite a bit more of a challenge.

 

A clamping ban and PPC tickets remain as unenforceable as ever. I'm happy with that!

 

Considering the argument of who parked is going to be dead in the water they will be more enforceable than before.

[Al27]

More enforceable? That's like saying someone is more or less pregnant.

[green_and_mean]

More enforceable? That's like saying someone is more or less pregnant.

 

Not really pegnancy is either you are or you aren't, a PPC ticket would rely on the circumstances as to whether its enforceable. Making the driver liable makes it more enforceable just as not using birth control makes pregnancy more liable.

[crem]

surely lack of birth control would make pregnancy more likely, not more liable?