Registered Keeper responsibility to PPC's

[green_and_mean]

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'

 

I never said they were the same I answered the rather vague question, however both are used to enforce non payment of on street parking fees so the answer is correct.

[green_and_mean]

£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.

 

Who are you to decide how much parking should cost? £70 is not a percentage of anything its the actual cost of parking for over two hours! If the landowner wants to charge £100 a day they can its a free market and you do not have to park or pay it. In the same way they can structure the costs so its free for customers and £50 for non customers it is after all there car park. Banks only reduced the charges because they were losing customers and worried about the Court cases pending they are still charging more than the £1 it costs to send the letter and thats legal because its a charge you agreed to when you opened the account.

[green_and_mean]

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

 

Hmmmm I'll have to think about that!

 

[Al27]

If you want to charge £100 a day for parking, there are ways and means of formulating such a contract.

 

How would you formulate such a contract G&M?

[green_and_mean]

If you want to charge £100 a day for parking, there are ways and means of formulating such a contract.

 

How would you formulate such a contract G&M?

 

Yes you can put up a nice big sign that states parking £100 per day.

[honeybee13]

hmmmm i'll have to think about that!

 

 

. Hb

[steveod]

Who are you to decide how much parking should cost? £70 is not a percentage of anything its the actual cost of parking for over two hours! If the landowner wants to charge £100 a day they can its a free market and you do not have to park or pay it. In the same way they can structure the costs so its free for customers and £50 for non customers it is after all there car park. Banks only reduced the charges because they were losing customers and worried about the Court cases pending they are still charging more than the £1 it costs to send the letter and thats legal because its a charge you agreed to when you opened the account.

 

 

Firstly. in most cases these extra charges by the banks were not agreed to when I opened the account. They just added them by changing the terms and conditions as they wanted.

Secondly, it is very different putting up a sign stating "£100 to park here for 2 hours" and putting up a sign "£1 to park here for 2 hours" and then penalising me £100 for getting back to my car 30 seconds late, my left rear wheel touching the white line, etc, etc, etc - by having a very small sign hidden somewhere on the property - that is daylight robbery - by its proper name is called extortion.

 

IF they want to charge and earn £100 from the parking, then they can do it, but I need to have the right to not agree to that contract, and as a RK and not the driver under this legislation I cannot agree or not agree to this extortionate amount, can I?

[green_and_mean]

Firstly. in most cases these extra charges by the banks were not agreed to when I opened the account. They just added them by changing the terms and conditions as they wanted.

yes but no one forced you to remain as a customer?

Secondly, it is very different putting up a sign stating "£100 to park here for 2 hours" and putting up a sign "£1 to park here for 2 hours" and then penalising me £100 for getting back to my car 30 seconds late, my left rear wheel touching the white line, etc, etc, etc - by having a very small sign hidden somewhere on the property - that is daylight robbery - by its proper name is called extortion.

 

IF they want to charge and earn £100 from the parking, then they can do it, but I need to have the right to not agree to that contract, and as a RK and not the driver under this legislation I cannot agree or not agree to this extortionate amount, can I?

 

 

If the sign is hidden that is a different matter, don't change the argument!! Why is it different if its clear you should make sure you are back in time so you don't have to pay the extra. You seem to think you have a legal right to park where you want and decide the prices. If you think its unreasonable don't park there....end of! I think its ridiculous my gym charges £30 a month for members but a 'one off' visit is £20 which is 20 times the daily rate but no one is forced in at gun point to pay its a choice they make.

[steveod]

If you want to charge £100 a day for parking, there are ways and means of formulating such a contract.

 

How would you formulate such a contract G&M?

 

G&M is suggesting that contracts are really worthless. This legislation basically does away with most of the elements of a contract. They should implement this legislation in all forms of services, hey G&M - how about the gas and electricty companies doing the same - they tell you that your gas will cost 14.4p per unit and then invoice you £100 extra at the end of the month because you used more than 100 units that month - Doesnt matter whether you agreed to it or not. What about the gas company just moving your contract and changing your tariff - doesnt matter that you didnt agree to it - under this type of legislation you own the house so you must pay the bill.

[green_and_mean]

G&M is suggesting that contracts are really worthless. This legislation basically does away with most of the elements of a contract. They should implement this legislation in all forms of services, hey G&M - how about the gas and electricty companies doing the same - they tell you that your gas will cost 14.4p per unit and then invoice you £100 extra at the end of the month because you used more than 100 units that month - Doesnt matter whether you agreed to it or not. What about the gas company just moving your contract and changing your tariff - doesnt matter that you didnt agree to it - under this type of legislation you own the house so you must pay the bill.

 

You are just talking rubbish no one is suggesting sticking up a sign after you have parked which is what you are trying to compare it with using your ridiculous analogy.

[steveod]

If the sign is hidden that is a different matter, don't change the argument!! Why is it different if its clear you should make sure you are back in time so you don't have to pay the extra. You seem to think you have a legal right to park where you want and decide the prices. If you think its unreasonable don't park there....end of! I think its ridiculous my gym charges £30 a month for members but a 'one off' visit is £20 which is 20 times the daily rate but no one is forced in at gun point to pay its a choice they make.

 

Man getting back to your car a minute late isnt a crime and I shouldnt be penalised for it. Even councils have legal obligations to consider the facts surrounding the parking,( and allow 5 minutes for it in most cases ) and VERY IMPORTANTLY have an independant appeals process and judical oversight, regulations, signs have to conform, etc. Whilst these private companies can have any type of signs, hidden t&cs, conflicting terms, etc -.

 

 

Yes, but your gym doesn't suddenly tell you you have to pay £20 to use the shower does it? What would you do if after you joined the gym for £30 per month because that is what they advertised, then suddenly found you had to pay an extra £20 to use each machine? They told you it was £30 to join but hidden in the mounds of small print is the fact that you have to pay to use each machine. Would this contract stand up in court? And guess what under this type of legislation you would not even be able to contest it. Or if your son/daughter joins the same gym and doesnt pay their monthly bill - should they have the right to make you pay it? Why not, under this legislation it is the same principle - its called vicarious liability isnt it?.

[steveod]

I am not saying they change the t&cs after you sign up for the gas services etc - they are allowed by pathetic legislation to have in small print the terms to allow them to do this - maybe just hidden somewhere on their website.

 

I am talking about legislation that changes the entire way contracts work, such as in this legislation, that effectively allows one party to implement whatever t&cs they want and these are then arbitararily forced onto either that party, or even worse a 3rd party who didnt agree to, nor even saw the t&cs of that contract. If you cannot see that then you are not even worth corresponding with. period.

[green_and_mean]

Yes, but your gym doesn't suddenly tell you you have to pay £20 to use the shower does it? What would you do if after you joined the gym for £30 per month because that is what they advertised, then suddenly found you had to pay an extra £20 to use each machine? They told you it was £30 to join but hidden in the mounds of small print is the fact that you have to pay to use each machine. Would this contract stand up in court? And guess what under this type of legislation you would not even be able to contest it. Or if your son/daughter joins the same gym and doesnt pay their monthly bill - should they have the right to make you pay it? Why not, under this legislation it is the same principle - its called vicarious liability isnt it?.

 

I asked the charges before I joined and yes if I signed up knowing a shower was £20 I very much expect to get chased for payment if I used the facilities. You seem to be confusing two matters firstly the charges secondly implementing them after you parked. On your previous point my electricity does go up if I use over a certain amount, its a part of my tarif, and secondly yes if you stayed the night and left a heater on full blast as the householder I would expect to get the bill for it.

[Al27]

Yes you can put up a nice big sign that states parking £100 per day.

 

£100 for a block of 24 hours might be considered a breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) if you are solely relying on signage.

 

This is assuming you would be unwilling to accept the equivalent £4.16 an hour.

 

If you were truly looking at incorporating such a pricing structure you would have to prove individual negotiation. If you are booking airport parking you would have paperwork to cover such a contract.

 

Otherwise we would live in a world where people could be trapped into all sorts of liabilities.

 

I asked the charges before I joined and yes if I signed up knowing a shower was £20 I very much expect to get chased for payment if I used the facilities.

 

The key words being 'signed up'.

 

On your previous point my electricity does go up if I use over a certain amount, its a part of my tarif, and secondly yes if you stayed the night and left a heater on full blast as the householder I would expect to get the bill for it.

 

And if the tariff was 5p a unit before 9pm, and £100 a unit afterwards?

[steveod]

I asked the charges before I joined and yes if I signed up knowing a shower was £20 I very much expect to get chased for payment if I used the facilities. You seem to be confusing two matters firstly the charges secondly implementing them after you parked. On your previous point my electricity does go up if I use over a certain amount, its a part of my tarif, and secondly yes if you stayed the night and left a heater on full blast as the householder I would expect to get the bill for it.

 

 

No you seem to be confusing 2 matters:

1. that a private company can get away with forcing a person that did not even agree to the contract to be suckered with exorbitant charges and parliament implementing "corrupt" and rash legislation to assist them, and the normal democratic rights of a person actually being able to view and agree to any contract and the the contract terms being reasoanble.

 

A scenario:

Invoice Nr : fooltopay1

Invoice From : CAG

Invoice To : G&M

 

 

As per our terms and conditions as set out on website.cag.co.uk/terms/documents/smallprint/verysmallprint/page192of256.html, Section 6(2)d you have exceeded the number of free posts of 5000 by 901. You actual posts is now 5901. Therefore as per our t&cs you owe us the amount of £100 per additional posting, for the total amount of £90100. Please note, that if we are unable to obtain the payment from you, then the owner of the computer you used and/or the person paying for the broadband line the postings were made from will be liable to pay this charge as per the following legislation:

The Parliament Willl Be A Bunch Of Fools To Allow Schedule 4 Act 2010

 

Additionally, as you have exceeded the "free time" of 60 minutes on our website using our bandwidth, your actual time was 60 minutes and 3 seconds, the person paying your broadband line, even if they were unaware you were going to exceed the free time of 60 minutes, is still liable to pay the excess fee

of £150.

 

We look forward to your prompt payment

 

"Bunch of Crooks"

 

 

 

So in the scenario above

1. would you pay these amounts?

2. Would you consider them fair?

3. Would you consider the fact that the computer owner or broadband line bill payer to be liable a reasonable option?

4. Would parliament try and pass a bill to implement such legislation that allowed website owners to charge a such?

5. Would a court allow such t&cs?

 

here are the answers:

1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No

 

and please dont try use the excuse that the t&cs are available so that you have to pay the invoice, you should have read them before posting on the website,etc,

as none of that is relevant as the legislation makes the owner of the computer or the person responsible for paying the broadband line responsible for paying the bill, whether they read and agreed to t&cs or not, or whether in fact they even knew you were accessing the site. This seems to be the line you use for the gym and gas scenarios I mentioned, but the fact that the legislation makes someone else responsible that didnt even agree to the contract or even have a chance to see the t&cs or to check that the t&cs have been "broken" , is the whole crux of this issue. How, in a democratic country ( well thats what the politicians like to keep saying even though we know its not the truth ) can this be allowed - a RK has no defence or chance of defence against the t&cs as they were not even given the option to read or agree to them. Ridiculous.

[green_and_mean]

No you seem to be confusing 2 matters:

1. that a private company can get away with forcing a person that did not even agree to the contract to be suckered with exorbitant charges and parliament implementing "corrupt" and rash legislation to assist them, and the normal democratic rights of a person actually being able to view and agree to any contract and the the contract terms being reasoanble.

 

A scenario:

Invoice Nr : fooltopay1

Invoice From : CAG

Invoice To : G&M

 

 

As per our terms and conditions as set out on website.cag.co.uk/terms/documents/smallprint/verysmallprint/page192of256.html, Section 6(2)d you have exceeded the number of free posts of 5000 by 901. You actual posts is now 5901. Therefore as per our t&cs you owe us the amount of £100 per additional posting, for the total amount of £90100. Please note, that if we are unable to obtain the payment from you, then the owner of the computer you used and/or the person paying for the broadband line the postings were made from will be liable to pay this charge as per the following legislation:

The Parliament Willl Be A Bunch Of Fools To Allow Schedule 4 Act 2010

 

Additionally, as you have exceeded the "free time" of 60 minutes on our website using our bandwidth, your actual time was 60 minutes and 3 seconds, the person paying your broadband line, even if they were unaware you were going to exceed the free time of 60 minutes, is still liable to pay the excess fee

of £150.

 

We look forward to your prompt payment

 

"Bunch of Crooks"

 

 

 

So in the scenario above

1. would you pay these amounts?

2. Would you consider them fair?

3. Would you consider the fact that the computer owner or broadband line bill payer to be liable a reasonable option?

4. Would parliament try and pass a bill to implement such legislation that allowed website owners to charge a such?

5. Would a court allow such t&cs?

 

here are the answers:

1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No

 

and please dont try use the excuse that the t&cs are available so that you have to pay the invoice, you should have read them before posting on the website,etc,

as none of that is relevant as the legislation makes the owner of the computer or the person responsible for paying the broadband line responsible for paying the bill, whether they read and agreed to t&cs or not, or whether in fact they even knew you were accessing the site. This seems to be the line you use for the gym and gas scenarios I mentioned, but the fact that the legislation makes someone else responsible that didnt even agree to the contract or even have a chance to see the t&cs or to check that the t&cs have been "broken" , is the whole crux of this issue. How, in a democratic country ( well thats what the politicians like to keep saying even though we know its not the truth ) can this be allowed - a RK has no defence or chance of defence against the t&cs as they were not even given the option to read or agree to them. Ridiculous.

 

No doubt a telephone owner doesn't have to pay for premium line phone calls is made by a 3rd party then?

 

I guess you think that a sky or virgin customer would not have to pay for films viewed by a 3rd party on their TV either?

 

Oh yes of course a computer owner couldn't be sued for the actions of a 3rd party......oh hang on!

 

A pub has reportedly been fined £8,000 after a customer downloaded copyrighted material on its Wi-Fi connection.

 

The managing director of Wi-Fi hotspot provider, The Cloud, told zdnet that the fine had been levied in a civil case this summer, following a successful prosecution by the rights holder. The Cloud

declined to name the pub involved, but the provider has contracts with pub chains including Fullers, Greene King and Punch Taverns.

 

It's believed to be the first time that a Wi-Fi hotspot provider has been held legally responsible for the activities of its customers, and could create a highly undesirable precedent for venues such as pubs, cafes and restaurants that offer free or paid-for Wi-Fi connections to their customers.

 

 

I guess the offence of 'permitting' a vehicle to be used without insurance is unlawful as well then along with all the decriminalised traffic/parking contraventions, as the poor old keeper has no control over what happens to their car?

 

Its not rocket science if you don't want you car to incur any fines, penalties or civil debts keep your keys in your pocket and only drive it yourself.

[patdavies]

To bring a totally new point, there does not seem to be anywhere in the legislation that will allow a hire or lease company to pass on the charges by (as registered keeper) stating that the car is hired - unlike DPE

[green_and_mean]

To bring a totally new point, there does not seem to be anywhere in the legislation that will allow a hire or lease company to pass on the charges by (as registered keeper) stating that the car is hired - unlike DPE

 

I think they (hire co.) will carry on as usual just re-charging the hirer.

[steveod]

No doubt a telephone owner doesn't have to pay for premium line phone calls is made by a 3rd party then?

You are correct here. It has been ruled by Ofcom on a number of occassions that if the bill payer did not give permission then the telephone provider has to refund the charges

 

I guess you think that a sky or virgin customer would not have to pay for films viewed by a 3rd party on their TV either?

They wouldnt if they hadnt authorised the viewing. But this a different sceanrio anyway. In my own house I have control of the usage of the items. There would be no need for me to say that the various terms and conditions havent been met or have been met i.e. there was a signing showing the t&cs, the car wasnt in fact touching the whote line of the bay, etc. Again, this is the whole crux of the matter - in my own home I have control of access to the service and checking the t&cs before agreeing to hire the movie, making the premium rate call - but with this legislation I DO NOT get to see nor agree or not to the t&cs which are being forced on me.

 

Oh yes of course a computer owner couldn't be sued for the actions of a 3rd party......oh hang on!

 

A pub has reportedly been fined £8,000 after a customer downloaded copyrighted material on its Wi-Fi connection.

 

The managing director of Wi-Fi hotspot provider, The Cloud, told zdnet that the fine had been levied in a civil case this summer, following a successful prosecution by the rights holder. The Cloud

declined to name the pub involved, but the provider has contracts with pub chains including Fullers, Greene King and Punch Taverns.

 

It's believed to be the first time that a Wi-Fi hotspot provider has been held legally responsible for the activities of its customers, and could create a highly undesirable precedent for venues such as pubs, cafes and restaurants that offer free or paid-for Wi-Fi connections to their customers.

This was a travesty of justice and they had very poor defense team obviously. A telecommunications or service provider cannot be held legal liable for the actions of customers using the service. Basic legal precedent. If you use your telephone line to call me and abuse and swear at me ( for instance using offensive and racialistic language ), BT cannot be found liable for any offence, and I could not sue BT for allowing you to use their service to make that type of call.

 

I guess the offence of 'permitting' a vehicle to be used without insurance is unlawful as well then along with all the decriminalised traffic/parking contraventions, as the poor old keeper has no control over what happens to their car?

Again you misinterpret stuff. The offence of "permitting" is only where a RK is aware or reckless as to the fact that the person using the vehicle has no insurance - if they not aware or mislead into believing the driver was insured when they were not there is no offence. Anyway, the RK can take active steps to ensure they are meeting the legal obligation, but once again in relation to this legislation as the RK I cannot be aware that the "offence" is to be committed because how am I to know my wife for instance is going to go park at x or y parking area, that she is not going to see a sign that is posted somewhere ( and even if she does that doesnt mean I agree to the t&cs ), or that she will get bakc to the cars 10 seconds late to find an extortion invoice attached to the car. - The whole problem is that I have no control or influence to accept or deny the t&cs. Thats the problem. Why dont you get that?

to

 

Its not rocket science if you don't want you car to incur any fines, penalties or civil debts keep your keys in your pocket and only drive it yourself.

Rubbish. Why should I? My wife and son need to use my cars and they have a perfect right to without a bunch of \\\\\\\\\ trying to extort money from me. If they dont want me or anyone else to park on "their" land they can put up gates, barriers or charging booths. Additionally, if the charges were reasonable ( say £10 - £15 ), for someone accidently getting back to their car a few seconds late, etc and there was an INDEPENDENT appeal process then there wouldnt be a problem.

Edited February 19, 2011 by MARTIN3030

[green_and_mean]

Rubbish. Why should I? My wife and son need to use my cars and they have a perfect right to without a bunch of ````````trying to extort money from me. If they dont want me or anyone else to park on "their" land they can put up gates, barriers or charging booths. Additionally, if the charges were reasonable ( say £10 - £15 ), for someone accidently getting back to their car a few seconds late, etc and there was an INDEPENDENT appeal process then there wouldnt be a problem.

 

You do not have a right to park where you like when you like why should people have to fence their land or put up gates to keep idiots like you out. It is people like you that has made these laws come about once upon a time people used to respect other people property without the need to clamp or charge people. Do you really think shops want to charge customers for parking a minute over the limit etc. Its because people are sick to death of people abusing parking using customer car parks whilst commuting or working nearby, using small pub car parks to go shopping etc. Sainsbury, Lidl etc make millions a year from customers do you really think they would be bothered about a few quid raised from parking charges they do it because customers are hacked off wih all the spaces being taken despite the stores being half empty and disabled bays being used by lazy morons too idle to walk more than 20ft. If you are that bothered why not do something useful and get people to park properly and then all these companies would go bust!

Edited February 19, 2011 by MARTIN3030

[Surfer01]

Surely under "The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" if you are penalised £70 for overstaying 10 -15 miniutes this could be regarded as an unfair term. This could apply to any number of different types of transgresions that the PPC dreams up.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes play nice can we ?

Keep to the facts and leave out the assertions.

[Surfer01]

What happened to the last post by "mightymouse"?

[steveod]

Yes, and my last post telling G&M to keep it nice and not call me an idiot! Why is his slanderous post still in but my one where I replied to him in a decent manner been removed? Bit of bias here or what?

[mightymouse_69]

My post quoted steveod's remarks concerning disabled bays. Since Steveods original post was removed, my post also had to go.

 

The points I covered in my post were that:

 

• It is fairly clear that the bill relates to charges resulting from a breach of the terms and conditions.
  
• Vicarious liability could relate to contract. In any event, it is an example of a third party being held responsible for another's tort.
  
• Trespass is rooted in common law.
  
• A claim under the UTCCRs would be interesting.
  
• Somewhat related to the above point, most conditions that I have seen in "parking contracts" are rather uncontroversial...