New Private Parking leglisation

[Geocyper]

Hi All,

 

Does anybody think the above bill will be of benefit to the private parking robbers?

[Jamberson]

From the little I know about it, I would say not.

 

The bill includes making clamping illegal on private land, which is a move against them.

 

It also empowers PPCs to "pursue" the registered keeper without knowledge of the driver of the vehicle - but in the absence of any real powers to do anything anyway, I can't see it matters much who they address their junk mail to.

[Old Snowy]

From the little I know about it, I would say not.

 

The bill includes making clamping illegal on private land, which is a move against them.

 

It also empowers PPCs to "pursue" the registered keeper without knowledge of the driver of the vehicle - but in the absence of any real powers to do anything anyway, I can't see it matters much who they address their junk mail to.

In overall terms I agree. However, as PPC's have established a reputation for exploiting every opportunity to inflate or enhance the public perception of their powers I have no doubt whatsoever that we will see them using it as a legal cosh. We, here know that their paperwork should still come in rolls, printed on soft, cushioned tissue but those who are unaware will not and reference to real, live legislation will frighten many into paying up there and then whether it conveys any meaningful powers or not.

[crem]

I agree with Old Snowy. There are plenty of people who already think the PPC invoices are legal, so when they get the opportunity to refer to a real Bill, then I think even more will fold.

 

They could go something like this

 

"We refer to the PCN issued to your car on some god-forsaken piece of scrap land which remains unpaid. In line with the new legislation contained within the the Protection of Freedom Bill (schedule 4, paragraph 2, section 8, subsection 14b, line 3) we are now entitled to pursure the Registered Keeper regarding this PCN. As such, we now request you pay the outstanding charge of 3 zillion pounds or we will be forced to take legal action."

[Al27]

Well, they'll actually say the keeper is 'liable'. At which point we'll just be telling them to carry on ignoring, and looking forward to the first RK county court case.

[crem]

but will they Al27? The one's that are "better" at playing this game, are usually cute enough to stay 1mm on the right side of the law, just. So I think they may avoid the "liable" word and just imply they can get the money out of the RK

[green_and_mean]

but will they Al27? The one's that are "better" at playing this game, are usually cute enough to stay 1mm on the right side of the law, just. So I think they may avoid the "liable" word and just imply they can get the money out of the RK

 

If the keeper is liable they will be able to get the money out of them provided the parking charge is....

 

a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, or a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages,

[Tony P]

provided the parking charge is....

 

a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, or a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages,

And therein sits the PPC's downfall should anything go to a Court in the realms of their threat-o-grams. But sufficient Mugs will pay up fast to keep the game worthwhile for them

[green_and_mean]

And therein sits the PPC's downfall should anything go to a Court in the realms of their threat-o-grams. But sufficient Mugs will pay up fast to keep the game worthwhile for them

 

I think you are wrong the majority of cases are not chased up purely due to proving liability, once liability is not an issue I'm sure far more will be off to the small claims Court.

[Tony P]

I probably said it clumsily.

What I was trying to say was that if PPCs went to Court persuing the sort of escalating amounts they put in their fright creating chain letters, they will fail - if the case is reasonably defended.

Undefended or poorly defended cases would be another matter - but the County Court is not a precedent (thankfully!)

[green_and_mean]

I probably said it clumsily.

What I was trying to say was that if PPCs went to Court persuing the sort of escalating amounts they put in their fright creating chain letters, they will fail - if the case is reasonably defended.

Undefended or poorly defended cases would be another matter - but the County Court is not a precedent (thankfully!)

 

Once liability is no longer an issue the only point of argument is the level of charge if thats the case a company dropping its charges down to a justifiable amount would probably iIMV have no problems getting the charges up held its the ludicrous £300 parking tickets that get chucked out of court.

[Tony P]

if thats the case a company dropping its charges down to a justifiable amount would probably iIMV have no problems getting the charges up held

And if that's the case do we really have a problem over the proposed changes to RK liability?

[Geocyper]

Hi, just got this through, done some homework on it it's just a rubbish request, anyone had any comment on this type off missive?

[Sidewinder]

Well known for it and a standard tactic to use legalese language in an attempt to worry you into paying up!

[DBC]

I recently made a complaint to the BPA over that letter and this is their reply. :-

 

Thank you for your recent email to my colleague in which you raised a concern over a reference to the use of the Civil Procedure Rules by AOS member Roxburghe.

 

In your communication, you have quoted the Civil Procedures which states that the relevant parts 31.16 and 31.17 ‘do not apply to the Small-Claims track’. BPA agrees with this statement.

 

When I contacted the operator to obtain their views about your concerns, I have been assured that the statement exists in Roxburghe’s documentation for information only, advising recipients of the letter to seek proper legal advice, rather than relying on some popular internet sites. There is no implication at this point that the Civil Procedure Rules will be used of a certainty. I was also assured that any such cases which require use of the Civil Procedure Rules are sent through the County Court track, and as such the Civil Procedure Rules can be applied if necessary. I was also assured that this process is only applied when absolutely needed.

 

 

I leave you to draw your own conclusions !

[Michael Browne]

There's a thread on MSE, with a response from BPA, here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3674413

[sameagle]

So everything that you might receive from this bunch of, erm... solicitors, is 100% truthful and correct.

 

Erm.....except when it's not, of course!

[Old Snowy]

CPR 31.16 and 17 applying only to cases not on the small claims track. Which is where all of the PPC cases go. The letter might better be described as employing a number of terminological inexactitudes. As Winston would have said.

[Geocyper]

Hi, is there going to be a high impact on the issuing of private parking tickets, when the bill going through parliament is enacted. I think the owners of the car will have to inform these lowlife whom was driving the car?

[Sidewinder]

....but the vast majority of tickets will still be unenforceable as a penalty and not representing any genuine pre-estimate of loss! There are also likely to be other 'technicalities' which will make this clause impossible to enforce.

[DBC]

To quote someone from another parking forum:-

 

The general consensus is that it will be business as usual post this "keeper liability" coming in as the advice will still be to ignore and the PPC will still have to enforce in court. Therefore all the old obstacles to court enforcement, such as the invoice being an unlawful penalty, no contract being formed and particularly the recent VCS case ruling practically all PPC tickets unenforcable, will apply. The measure is only a right to claim against the keeper if the driver is not known, it is not legitimising PPC invoices in any way.

 

The keeper liability measure will only come in when an "independent" appeals mechansism run by the BPA is set up. Naturally no-one expects such a service to be independent. However it will allow motorists another avenue if they so choose and then the PPC will not be able to enforce anyway unless they go to court. Overall very little will change, despite the spin that will be evident from the BPA and assorted PPCs.

 

And:-

 

For a start, this goes right up against the principle of privity, i.e. that a third party cannot be held to a contract he had no part it. This has yet to be tested in court, and it's not likely to happen soon (or even soon after the law comes in later in the year).

[Geocyper]

Hi Thanks, I wonder what happens if the registered keeper lives in Scotland??

[Conniff]

The keeper liability measure will only come in when an "independent" appeals mechansism run by the BPA is set up.

 

There will never be an independent appeal mechanism as long as the BPA has any involvement. They 'are' the parking companies, the board is the bosses of these parking companies, so how can they ever be independent.

[Crocdoc]

Hi Thanks, I wonder what happens if the registered keeper lives in Scotland??

 

The old rules apply as the new legislation will not have any impact in Scotland. Nevertheless, I agree that keeper liability will make no difference whatsoever.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Crocdoc

[Conniff]

It will also depend a lot on the actual wording if they can enforce it or not.

 

Just like their own letters, if it say something like 'you may be able to demand the drivers details' then that means nothing and no you can't.