Registered Keeper responsibility to PPC's

[green_and_mean]

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

 

liable [ˈlaɪəbəl]

adj (postpositive)

1. (Law) legally obliged or responsible;

answerable

 

2. susceptible or exposed; subject

 

3. probable, likely, or capable

[Al27]

Not really pegnancy is either you are or you aren't, a PPC ticket would rely on the circumstances as to whether its enforceable.

 

ie. it's either enforceable or it's not, regardless of who is liable.

 

Anyway, we're going off at a tangent here. I'm satisfied that this bill still keeps life difficult for PPCs.

[green_and_mean]

ie. it's either enforceable or it's not, regardless of who is liable.

 

.

 

No its not, previously if you parked in a NCP car park and failed to pay they would have no way of knowing who parked the car so its totally unenforceable, now the keeper is liable they can chase the keeper for payment which is far more likely to succeed.

[Surfer01]

No its not, previously if you parked in a NCP car park and failed to pay they would have no way of knowing who parked the car so its totally unenforceable, now the keeper is liable they can chase the keeper for payment which is far more likely to succeed.

Surely as a keeper you have no obligation to divulge the name of the driver to a private organisation and if it went to court, they would still need to prove that the RK was the driver. Also I am not sure how they can make the fine enforceable for a specific amount, i.e. £60 fine for parking which is normally free and for instance only cost you £1.50 per hour on a private parking lot. What if you pay the amount required but get a ticket for some other reason, i.e. parked on the white line etc?

[green_and_mean]

Surely as a keeper you have no obligation to divulge the name of the driver to a private organisation and if it went to court, they would still need to prove that the RK was the driver. Also I am not sure how they can make the fine enforceable for a specific amount, i.e. £60 fine for parking which is normally free and for instance only cost you £1.50 per hour on a private parking lot. What if you pay the amount required but get a ticket for some other reason, i.e. parked on the white line etc?

 

Why? The whole point of the proposed law is to make the keeper liable in a similar way as they are for council PCNs. The fee is stll contestable in Court but the previous argument as to who parked will be void the only arguments would be as regards signs, amount asked for etc.

[Surfer01]

Learned one, I was asking you for clarification as you are a fountain of knowledge when it comes to PCNs etc. It seems that the new law if passed by the House of Lords is to enable PPC to continue to function when clamping comes in to force. I think that the first challenge woudl be very interesting especially if it reagrding a person receiving a £60 for overstaying their visit by 10 minutes or a peson accidently parking in a disabled bay on a private parking area.

BTW have you ever seen a sign on a supermarket car park instructing you to dispaly your Blue Badge. Normally the signs state that the parking is reserved for holders on BB only and nothing more. Again yu are undeer no obligation to display your BB on private land such as a supemarket car park and although I probably missed it, did not see anything in the new bill ot cover this.

[Al27]

No its not, previously if you parked in a NCP car park and failed to pay they would have no way of knowing who parked the car so its totally unenforceable, now the keeper is liable they can chase the keeper for payment which is far more likely to succeed.

 

I understand your point. What I'm saying is that to make it enforceable at all, it has to cross all the usual hurdles ie. a contract was in place, the amount isn't a contractual penalty and it amounts to actual loss incurred. You're correct one hurdle has been overcome, but this is the same hurdle that worked against Stephen Thomas! It's not always easy arguing you weren't the driver in front of a judge if they're in the mindset of weedling the information out of you. You can look disingenuous from the start if you're first job is to withold information from the judge. It's not often you don't know who was driving on the day alleged.

 

Now a decent judge will realise liability is not related to enforceability. If neither the claimant or defendant can prove a contract was formed, the judge has make a decision on something nobody can prove because none of the parties around the table were there. Will this lead to more or less success for claimants? If you were a judge, would it be fair to impose a sum of money on somebody who was minding their business at work at the time? It still all comes down to balance of probability as we know. Of course, there will still be clueless judges who just misread the legislation and just find against keepers as a matter of course.

 

In reality, I'd just recommend calling the driver as a witness and both of you attend. To be honest, 90% of the time the driver is the RK anyway, so nothing much will change except the threatening letters.

[green_and_mean]

Learned one, I was asking you for clarification as you are a fountain of knowledge when it comes to PCNs etc. It seems that the new law if passed by the House of Lords is to enable PPC to continue to function when clamping comes in to force. I think that the first challenge woudl be very interesting especially if it reagrding a person receiving a £60 for overstaying their visit by 10 minutes or a peson accidently parking in a disabled bay on a private parking area.

BTW have you ever seen a sign on a supermarket car park instructing you to dispaly your Blue Badge. Normally the signs state that the parking is reserved for holders on BB only and nothing more. Again yu are undeer no obligation to display your BB on private land such as a supemarket car park and although I probably missed it, did not see anything in the new bill ot cover this.

 

Thats irrelevant to the point, previously it was impossible to take an unknown person to Court for not displaying a blue badge or whatever as you cannot randomly go about suing people with no grounds. Now the PPC can take the keeper to Court for allowing his car to be parked without a blue badge etc and the case would be argued in Court as I already stated in my first reply to you. The first hurdle that has hindered the PPC case deciding who parked the car will be removed so it will be easier to enforce, how much easier remains to be seen.

[steveod]

Thats irrelevant to the point, previously it was impossible to take an unknown person to Court for not displaying a blue badge or whatever as you cannot randomly go about suing people with no grounds. Now the PPC can take the keeper to Court for allowing his car to be parked without a blue badge etc and the case would be argued in Court as I already stated in my first reply to you. The first hurdle that has hindered the PPC case deciding who parked the car will be removed so it will be easier to enforce, how much easier remains to be seen.

 

I cannot see how any magistrate or judge can rule in favour of a PPC over a RK if it has not been proved that the RK was the driver. How can a contract have been formed with the RK if he may not have been there to view the signs, check that the t&cs are valid,check that the time actually expired, etc. The legislation may give the RIGHT for the PPC to require the RK to pay but it states that this is still all subject to current contract law and so can never really be enforced against a RK if not proved they were the driver.

 

Additionally, this legislation is full of loopholes and very badly drafted.

In my opinion there are various issues:

 

1. it mentions and defines a "parking charge" as the fee or charge required to park the vehicle on the land. Therefore the PPC, "creditor" can only claim against the RK for the actual "parking charge" and not for any other incidental charges or penalties. So a court could only require a RK to pay the "parking charge". In para 6(2)d it specifically states that only the "parking charges" must be specified - not any penalties or damages amount.

 

2. It requires the PPC to deliver a "notice to owner" to the driver - so they will need to prove that this was done

 

3. It makes no requirements for the RK to provide the detail for the drivers as in a S172. In fact wouldnt the RK in providiing the name and address

of the driver to a private company be violating the data protection act( especially in the case of a company car the company could not provide this inofrmation to

another private company). The RK in fact does not need to provide this information - Human Rights Act, roght to silence etc

 

4. If the PPC can only require payment of the "parking charge" without any penalties or further damages then this legislation may not fall foul

of other legislation such as the Human Rights Act - if not then how can a person that never committed the "crime" or Act be found guilty of it( i know it want be

a criminal sanction however, If a PPC was awarded

penalties or damages in such a case and I refused to pay the penalty or damages part, then effectively a legal instrument would be in effect against me, nameley a CCJ, and thereore the entire process from beginning to end is subject to the Human Rights Act, European Legislation, etc)

 

5. The posting on a sign by a PPC that a penalty or damages of something in the order of 6000% of the parking charge, for instance £60 in case of a £1 parking charge, surely must not be compliant with Unfair Terms of Contract laws and has to be considered a penalty. This has not been addressed in anyway in this legislation so I cannot see how such a penalty can be enforced.

 

6. In the case of a normal NTO this has to be delivered within 14 days - the reason that parliament decided this was that it was expected that a RK would remember, or should be expected to remember, who was driving the vehicle on the day of the offence and anymore than the 14 days could not be expected to. In the case of this legislation they have made it 28 days before the PPC can notify the RK of the "offence" - what makes it so different over a NTO that a RK shoud remember who was driving. In the case of my cars, my wife, my brother and myself use the car to go to town, shopping centres, etc regularly but I am the RK. After 14 days it would be difficult for me to know parked the car where after 14 days.

 

7. in this legislation the "notice to driver" HAS to specify a whole load of info. The PPCs most probably wont put all this on their "tickets" as it would require an A4 sheet, lol.

[Surfer01]

As far as I am aware at thsi time there is no law in the land that allows one individual to fine another individual and a company is reagrded as an individual. If a super market or similar invites you onto their premises and you overstay your welcome by 10 minutes and then receive a £60 I would imagniwe this would be very difficutl to enforce in a court of law as it contradicts the "trespass tort". However if the PPC were to pursue it for the actual parking fee of i.e. £2.00 then they woudl have grounds to win. Can't see that happening though.

Here is a good debate thread on it. See http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59039&st=0

[mightymouse_69]

I cannot see how any magistrate or judge can rule in favour of a PPC over a RK if it has not been proved that the RK was the driver. How can a contract have been formed with the RK if he may not have been there to view the signs, check that the t&cs are valid,check that the time actually expired, etc. The legislation may give the RIGHT for the PPC to require the RK to pay but it states that this is still all subject to current contract law and so can never really be enforced against a RK if not proved they were the driver.

 

The legislation specifically states that the RK is liable for any parking charges. It does not need to be shown that the RK was party to a contract - if the RK's car was on private land and incurred a parking charge, the RK is ultimately responsible.

 

Additionally, this legislation is full of loopholes and very badly drafted.

In my opinion there are various issues:

 

1. it mentions and defines a "parking charge" as the fee or charge required to park the vehicle on the land. Therefore the PPC, "creditor" can only claim against the RK for the actual "parking charge" and not for any other incidental charges or penalties. So a court could only require a RK to pay the "parking charge". In para 6(2)d it specifically states that only the "parking charges" must be specified - not any penalties or damages amount.

 

It does mention parking charge, but you have given a false interpretation of the explanatory notes. They state that a parking charge is a fee or charge that is required of the driver contrary to the contract terms relating to use of the land. This would include any fees or charges levied where there is a breach of the terms and conditions.

 

2. It requires the PPC to deliver a "notice to owner" to the driver - so they will need to prove that this was done

 

It is actually called a "notice to the driver." Proving that such notice has been served would be easy - a picture of the ticket on the car for example.

 

3. It makes no requirements for the RK to provide the detail for the drivers as in a S172. In fact wouldnt the RK in providiing the name and address

of the driver to a private company be violating the data protection act( especially in the case of a company car the company could not provide this inofrmation to

another private company). The RK in fact does not need to provide this information - Human Rights Act, roght to silence etc

 

There is no need for the legislation to compel the RK to provide details of the driver - the RK is responsible for the charge so it does not matter who the driver was.

 

4. If the PPC can only require payment of the "parking charge" without any penalties or further damages then this legislation may not fall foul

of other legislation such as the Human Rights Act - if not then how can a person that never committed the "crime" or Act be found guilty of it( i know it want be

a criminal sanction however, If a PPC was awarded

penalties or damages in such a case and I refused to pay the penalty or damages part, then effectively a legal instrument would be in effect against me, nameley a CCJ, and thereore the entire process from beginning to end is subject to the Human Rights Act, European Legislation, etc)

 

As you state, this is not a crime. You would be liable because you are the RK. There are other examples where people can be held liable for torts which they have not personally committed.

 

6. In the case of a normal NTO this has to be delivered within 14 days - the reason that parliament decided this was that it was expected that a RK would remember, or should be expected to remember, who was driving the vehicle on the day of the offence and anymore than the 14 days could not be expected to. In the case of this legislation they have made it 28 days before the PPC can notify the RK of the "offence" - what makes it so different over a NTO that a RK shoud remember who was driving. In the case of my cars, my wife, my brother and myself use the car to go to town, shopping centres, etc regularly but I am the RK. After 14 days it would be difficult for me to know parked the car where after 14 days.

 

I am not sure if you are correct on the time limits there. Regardless, in this case it does not matter - it does not matter if you cannot remember who parked the car. The RK is liable!

 

7. in this legislation the "notice to driver" HAS to specify a whole load of info. The PPCs most probably wont put all this on their "tickets" as it would require an A4 sheet, lol.

 

I don't think there is a lot of information really...

[Al27]

-----

[Al27]

This is interesting:

 

"The creditor has the right to claim payment of any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

 

Conditions that must be met:

 

The first condition is that the creditor is UNABLE to enforce those terms against the driver because the creditor DOES NOT KNOW both the NAME of the driver and CURRENT ADDRESS for service for the driver."

 

If the creditor is told the name and address of the driver, the creditor becomes ABLE to enforce terms against the driver. Therefore the condition that he is UNABLE no longer applies.

 

So it seems to me that you could name any driver at any address and be left in peace if you are the keeper.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Al27

[Al27]

Post your thoughts: http://publicreadingstage.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/56-recovery-of-unpaid-parking-charges

[steveod]

The legislation specifically states that the RK is liable for any parking charges. It does not need to be shown that the RK was party to a contract - if the RK's car was on private land and incurred a parking charge, the RK is ultimately responsible.

 

 

 

It does mention parking charge, but you have given a false interpretation of the explanatory notes. They state that a parking charge is a fee or charge that is required of the driver contrary to the contract terms relating to use of the land. This would include any fees or charges levied where there is a breach of the terms and conditions.

No, I don't think so IMO. The definition of "parking charge" is very clear and is set in the DEFINITIONS section. It clearly states:

“parking charge” means a fee or charge (however described) required

 

to be paid by the driver of the vehicle under the terms of the relevant

 

contract in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land;

So it specifies the charge to PARK your VEHICLE on land i.e. £2 for 2 hours- not any charges related to BREACH OF CONTRACT. If parliament wanted it to cover breach of contract/tort, compensation for damages etc it would have been clearly expressed as so.

"parking charge" would have been defined with the additional of :

"any additional charges or compensation over and above the charge to park the vehicle on the land" or something similar as set out in the relevant terms and conditions.

 

It is actually called a "notice to the driver." Proving that such notice has been served would be easy - a picture of the ticket on the car for example.Yes, but they would have to take pictures each and every time.

 

 

 

There is no need for the legislation to compel the RK to provide details of the driver - the RK is responsible for the charge so it does not matter who the driver was.

Wrong, the RK is NOT responsible for the charge, the creditor only has a RIGHT TO CLAIM if they can prove all terms of the contract are valid, enforceable and do not breach any other legislation such as unfair terms etc. and in my opinion they would have to PROVE that the driver and RK had agreed to the t&cs as per normal contract law. No where in this legislation does it do away with normal contract law, in fact it states that the whole process is subject to contract law. a total mash up of legislation typical of what labour used to do - looks like the coalition going the same way.

 

 

As you state, this is not a crime. You would be liable because you are the RK. There are other examples where people can be held liable for torts which they have not personally committed.

such as?

 

 

I am not sure if you are correct on the time limits there. Regardless, in this case it does not matter - it does not matter if you cannot remember who parked the car. The RK is liable!

I am correct on the time limits and it does matter otherwise why did parliament set a time limit on NTO? if not relevant then why dont they do away with that?

 

 

I don't think there is a lot of information really...

Quite a bit, they have to specify the terms of the contract, how the contract came to be in force, etc.

[mightymouse_69]

No, I don't think so IMO. The definition of "parking charge" is very clear and is set in the DEFINITIONS section. It clearly states:

“parking charge” means a fee or charge (however described) required to be paid by the driver of the vehicle under the terms of the relevant contract in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land...So it specifies the charge to PARK your VEHICLE on land i.e. £2 for 2 hours- not any charges related to BREACH OF CONTRACT. If parliament wanted it to cover breach of contract/tort, compensation for damages etc it would have been clearly expressed as so.

 

The bill states that charges or fees under the relevant contract may be enforced against the driver. The bill does not exclude any particular charges. Reading this in conjunction with the explanatory notes, it is clear that the intention of this section will be to enable PPCs to recover charges which are issued as a result of a breach of contract etc.

 

"The scheme is based on the legal analysis that a driver of a vehicle by parking on private land impliedly accepts the landowner’s offer to park (or that of a parking company acting as the landowner’s agent), or prohibition on parking and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions (including any parking charges and the associated enforcement mechanism for those charges) advertised on a notice board at the entrance to and within the land. If the terms and conditions are not adhered to by the driver then the vehicle can be "ticketed" for charges due under the terms of the contract."

 

The notes then go on to describe the current law and then go further - stating how the new law would aid in the recovery of charges.

 

Yes, but they would have to take pictures each and every time.

 

This is common place for some companies. I am sure it is not too much trouble.

 

Wrong, the RK is NOT responsible for the charge, the creditor only has a RIGHT TO CLAIM if they can prove all terms of the contract are valid, enforceable and do not breach any other legislation such as unfair terms etc. and in my opinion they would have to PROVE that the driver and RK had agreed to the t&cs as per normal contract law. No where in this legislation does it do away with normal contract law, in fact it states that the whole process is subject to contract law. a total mash up of legislation typical of what labour used to do - looks like the coalition going the same way.

 

Most contract law is common law. This being a statute would automatically override those rules. The bill expressly states that the RK will be liable in cases where the name and address of the driver are unknown.

 

such as?

 

The doctrine of vicarious liability instantly springs to mind.

[Al27]

The bill states that charges or fees under the relevant contract may be enforced against the driver. The bill does not exclude any particular charges. Reading this in conjunction with the explanatory notes, it is clear that the intention of this section will be to enable PPCs to recover charges which are issued as a result of a breach of contract etc.

 

How do you read the line about it being immaterial whether the driver was permitted to be on the land or not?

[Surfer01]

Another question is; Can you have two statutes for the exactly same offence, i.e. trespess and "illegal" parking?

[green_and_mean]

Another question is; Can you have two statutes for the exactly same offence, i.e. trespess and "illegal" parking?

 

They are not the same thing and yes you can for example RTRA 1984 and RTA 1991 both allowed Councils to enforce parking.

[steveod]

to mighty mouse:

 

You seem to be bypassing and overlooking the definition of parking charge in the legislation. This is VERY relevant. It states the charge to PARK THE VEHICLE ON THE LAND. NOT penalty charges, other incidental charges, etc.

[green_and_mean]

to mighty mouse:

 

You seem to be bypassing and overlooking the definition of parking charge in the legislation. This is VERY relevant. It states the charge to PARK THE VEHICLE ON THE LAND. NOT penalty charges, other incidental charges, etc.

 

All charges are to park they cannot issue penalty charges just like banks cannot if you go overdrawn. However if the charge is free for the first 2 hours and then £70 for over two hours is that a penalty or the charge for parking more than 2 hours?

[honeybee13]

Hello G&M. I love your new avatar, being a Pink Panther fan. Does that make you pink and mean now?

 

OP, sorry to interrupt, couldn't resist it.

 

My best, HB

[lamma]

They are not the same thing and yes you can for example RTRA 1984 and RTA 1991 both allowed Councils to enforce parking.

that is disengenuous.

 

RTA 1991 and TMA 2004 permit CPE.

RTRA 1984 much more wide ranging.

the RTA 1991 and the RTRA 1984 are not 'equivalent'

[steveod]

All charges are to park they cannot issue penalty charges just like banks cannot if you go overdrawn. However if the charge is free for the first 2 hours and then £70 for over two hours is that a penalty or the charge for parking more than 2 hours?

 

£70 is a penalty as it is almost 7000% more than the actual cost. That is why the banks had to decrease their charges from £25-£35 down to £12 in order to ward off ruling the charges as penalties. And the court never even decided on the matter whether they were penalty charges or not - they only ruled that OFT could not investigate it.

 

A charge of say £10 - £15 would possibly be ruled as a parking charge and part of a contract, anymore than that is obviously a penalty.

[steveod]

 

The doctrine of vicarious liability instantly springs to mind.

 

But this does not relate to contract law.

 

vicarious liability n. sometimes called "imputed liability," attachment of responsibility to a person for harm or damages caused by another person in either a negligence lawsuit or criminal prosecution. Thus, an employer of an employee who injures someone through negligence while in the scope of employment (doing work for the employer) is vicariously liable for damages to the injured person. A participant in a crime may be vicariously liable for murder if another member of the gang shoots and kills a shopkeeper or policeman