1st October Legislation - Does It Cover Non-BPA Members?

[sploits]

Hi,

I'm on the understanding that the new rules for PPC's that start today are for BPA members only. If so what about the Non-BPA members?

I ask this as we have a few car parks in my local town (Whitehaven) that are patrolled (and I'm pretty sure owned) by Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners.

They have a habit of dealing out Parking Invoices like confetti and whenever I can I advise people to ignore their empty threats (and the eventual threats from Roxburghe and the lovely Graham White).

As far as I know they don't appear to be members of the BPA (I have checked the BPA list but can't find them on there)

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/AOS-Members

 

Any advice would be great.

 

Cheers,

 

Sploits

[Crocdoc]

If they are Parking Charge notices you can still ignore, the new rules will make absolutely no difference , however if the company you mention is not a BPA memeber I cannot understand how they are obtaining Keeper details.

[sploits]

Hi Crocdoc,

 

Thanks for the reply,

I'm not 100% sure that they aren't a member of the BPA but having a look at the members list I can't find them listed anywhere. I will be in town this coming Friday so I will pop round and check their signage and see if it lists it there. If it doesn't then what is the best port of action. Can they be reported for obtaining RK details when they aren't supposed to? If so then who to?

 

Also if they are members and they dish out a parking charge then we ignore because of what reason? I know it was always because of them not knowing the driver, charging an extortianate amount (penalty) etc but with the new law then I thought we had to comply and possibly pay (loss of earnings at the most anyway). Sorry if the question sounds dumb, I'm just trying to get my head around it so that I don't give out false advice if anybody asks me whether or not to pay an invoice from a PPC.

 

Thanks again

[Crocdoc]

At the end of the day, the principal has not changed. In my view the identity of the driver should never have been used as an absolute defence. The debate about such charges being fines or penalties has always been a much stronger defence, The new rules will not make it any easier for these companies to succeed in the courts. Therefore, it is back to receiving begging letters from debt collectors.

 

Ignore.

[sploits]

Brilliant Crocdoc,

 

I will advise people to continue ignoring.

 

As for Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners I will check there signage out and report back to my findings. They hate me as it is due to me advising the whole of my town to ignore their junkmail. This will add to the hatred if I can find out that they aren't members.

 

Cheers,

 

Sploits

[firstclassx]

The Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners may have some statutory powers like Byelaws etc relating to parking, in which case a criminal action could arise if this is the case. A power could possibly be within the Harbours Act 1964.

 

There is a specific power under Section 83 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to create (criminal) Byelaws at certain harbours/ports/docks.

 

I believe the Byelaw is:

 

Obstruction or interference at harbour area premises/dock estate

 

23. No persons shall -

(b) park any vehicle so as to obstruct any road, building, mooring place, plant, machinery or apparatus or the access thereto;

 

Maximum penalty on conviction is a Level 3 fine (up to £1000).

 

 

So - I wouldn't automatically ignore any tickets from Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners, until you have ensured that they do not relate to Byelaws/Criminal marine law. There is no requirement for any signage. It is also strict liability which means that if you obstruct a road by parking, on harbour/port land or property, you automatically commit an offence with absolutely no defences.

 

If you have a copy of the parking notice it would help to scan a copy so we can see what it says.

Edited October 1, 2012 by firstclassx

[instrumentsofjoy]

Brilliant Crocdoc,

 

I will advise people to continue ignoring.

 

As for Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners I will check there signage out and report back to my findings. They hate me as it is due to me advising the whole of my town to ignore their junkmail. This will add to the hatred if I can find out that they aren't members.

 

Cheers,

 

Sploits

 

I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that membership of the BPA is compulsory if the private parking company wishes to use the electronic access.

 

There is nothing to stop people/companies making a paper request as you or I might. Applicants to the Approved Operator Scheme have a probationary period anyway before being allowed access to the electronic scheme.

 

If you have a ticket I believe it is possible to ask via Freedom on Information to whom the DVLA have released information and what evidence was presented to them to allow them to do so. That might prove fruitful.

 

But I stress that is my understanding - others may know better.

[sploits]

The Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners may have some statutory powers like Byelaws etc relating to parking, in which case a criminal action could arise if this is the case. A power could possibly be within the Harbours Act 1964.

 

There is a specific power under Section 83 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to create (criminal) Byelaws at certain harbours/ports/docks.

 

I believe the Byelaw is:

 

Obstruction or interference at harbour area premises/dock estate

 

23. No persons shall -

(b) park any vehicle so as to obstruct any road, building, mooring place, plant, machinery or apparatus or the access thereto;

 

Hi firstclassx,

 

I have had a ticket off them in the past and nothing has ever been mentioned about any harbour bylaws.

Also the car parks are off the harbour and you cannot access the working harbour directly from the car parks.

[sploits]

If you have a ticket I believe it is possible to ask via Freedom on Information to whom the DVLA have released information and what evidence was presented to them to allow them to do so. That might prove fruitful.

 

This could prove very useful indeed. Roll on Friday so that I can do some snooping and then if they aren't part of the BPA I will personally go out of my way to recieve a ticket from them to then see what rights they have (if any) to get my details from the DVLA.

 

Thanks

[Crocdoc]

The Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners may have some statutory powers like Byelaws etc relating to parking, in which case a criminal action could arise if this is the case. A power could possibly be within the Harbours Act 1964.

 

There is a specific power under Section 83 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to create (criminal) Byelaws at certain harbours/ports/docks.

 

I believe the Byelaw is:

 

Obstruction or interference at harbour area premises/dock estate

 

23. No persons shall -

(b) park any vehicle so as to obstruct any road, building, mooring place, plant, machinery or apparatus or the access thereto;

 

Maximum penalty on conviction is a Level 3 fine (up to £1000).

 

 

So - I wouldn't automatically ignore any tickets from Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners, until you have ensured that they do not relate to Byelaws/Criminal marine law. There is no requirement for any signage. It is also strict liability which means that if you obstruct a road by parking, on harbour/port land or property, you automatically commit an offence with absolutely no defences.

 

If you have a copy of the parking notice it would help to scan a copy so we can see what it says.

 

I agree entirely, similar rules apply to Airports, Stations etc, however the mere fact that they are issuing CIVIL PARKING CHARGE notices suggests in itself that they are not using enforcement measures under the terms of byelaw.

[firstclassx]

I agree entirely, similar rules apply to Airports, Stations etc, however the mere fact that they are issuing CIVIL PARKING CHARGE notices suggests in itself that they are not using enforcement measures under the terms of byelaw.

 

The OP didn't specify what the wording was... that is why I asked for a copy to read the wording.

 

The problem with ignoring the "civil" penalties in cases like this, is that, at some point, the Harbour/Port authority may realise they are ineffective/unpaid and may start to apply the criminal legislation such as Byelaws, as they are perfectly entitled to do.

 

Certainly people shouldn't be parking anywhere they fancy just because a "civil" penalty is usually unenforceable.

[sploits]

There is no wording on the tickets stating any bylaws (harbour or any other). The wording on all the signs states civil parking charges will be issued. I will take a photo of the sign on Froday and post a copy up for you all.

Also would yhey br allowed to use the bylaw if the carparks have nothi g to do with the harbour? Fair enough they are close but we are a seaside town and the carparks have no real connection to the harbour (apart from being possibly owned by the harbour commission). Would that not be like Newcastle airport using the bylaw for a carpark they possibly owned/managed in Newcastle city centre?

[firstclassx]

There is no wording on the tickets stating any bylaws (harbour or any other). The wording on all the signs states civil parking charges will be issued. I will take a photo of the sign on Froday and post a copy up for you all.

Also would yhey br allowed to use the bylaw if the carparks have nothi g to do with the harbour? Fair enough they are close but we are a seaside town and the carparks have no real connection to the harbour (apart from being possibly owned by the harbour commission). Would that not be like Newcastle airport using the bylaw for a carpark they possibly owned/managed in Newcastle city centre?

 

If the land is owned by the Harbour authority then the Byelaws would presumably apply. Boundaries will probably be laid out in specific legislation. They also apply off their land if access to the harbour is obstructed.

 

Marine Law is quite complicated and way out of my niche.

 

On the railway, their Byelawst covers any land owned or managed by a railway operator or on their behalf.

[esmerobbo]

I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that membership of the BPA is compulsory if the private parking company wishes to use the electronic access.

 

There is nothing to stop people/companies making a paper request as you or I might. Applicants to the Approved Operator Scheme have a probationary period anyway before being allowed access to the electronic scheme.

 

If you have a ticket I believe it is possible to ask via Freedom on Information to whom the DVLA have released information and what evidence was presented to them to allow them to do so. That might prove fruitful.

 

But I stress that is my understanding - others may know better.

 

No to gain keepers details for the reason of a parking charge either by electronic or paper application then you must be an AOS member. I would bet the details are being gained by Roxburghe as they are members. However they should not gain any details for anyone other then a AOS member.

 

However the company could be gaining keeper details for other reasons.

[sploits]

No to gain keepers details for the reason of a parking charge either by electronic or paper application then you must be an AOS member. I would bet the details are being gained by Roxburghe as they are members. However they should not gain any details for anyone other then a AOS member.

 

And as far as I'm aware WHC are not an AOS member.

 

However the company could be gaining keeper details for other reasons.

What other reasons could there be?

[esmerobbo]

 

What other reasons could there be?

 

Trespassing, abandoned car, damage caused, personal injury, any reasonable cause except the claim for a parking charge. It would depend on what the DVLA thought of the reasonable cause. They could be requesting the information through a byelaw, then processing it as a civil claim. They then keep any money where as with a byelaw offence it would go to a court.

 

Many railway carpark operators use byelaw 14 to try and intimidate but use the civil route.

[sploits]

Trespassing, abandoned car, damage caused, personal injury, any reasonable cause except the claim for a parking charge. It would depend on what the DVLA thought of the reasonable cause. They could be requesting the information through a byelaw, then processing it as a civil claim. They then keep any money where as with a byelaw offence it would go to a court.

 

Many railway carpark operators use byelaw 14 to try and intimidate but use the civil route.

 

Ah so basically any excuse they can think of to get peoples details to then try and fleece them.....

[firstclassx]

Trespassing, abandoned car, damage caused, personal injury, any reasonable cause except the claim for a parking charge. It would depend on what the DVLA thought of the reasonable cause. They could be requesting the information through a byelaw, then processing it as a civil claim. They then keep any money where as with a byelaw offence it would go to a court.

 

Many railway carpark operators use byelaw 14 to try and intimidate but use the civil route.

 

Perhaps so, but although it may benefit the railway operator, does it not also benefit the motorist who can avoid prosecution?

[queensclose]

as i see it you have to name who the driver was. heres mine

 

 

iant payink

2543 10th St

Santa Monica CA 90405-3956

United States

[Crocdoc]

as i see it you have to name who the driver was. heres mine

 

 

iant payink

2543 10th St

Santa Monica CA 90405-3956

United States

 

YES I have visions of this happening, I would also imagine that appeals will be received from people in Botswana, Outer Mongolia and any other place you can imagine simply to to cost the PPC £27.00 + VAT.

[firstclassx]

YES I have visions of this happening, I would also imagine that appeals will be received from people in Botswana, Outer Mongolia and any other place you can imagine simply to to cost the PPC £27.00 + VAT.

 

Rhaid peidio ag anghofio Gogledd Corea, Iran ac Irac er!

 

Unrhyw un awydd ysgrifennu apęl yn Gymraeg? Yn sicr mae'n rhaid iddynt gydymffurfio â Deddf yr Iaith Gymraeg os gallai'r "gyrrwr" ar y pryd yn "Cymraeg"? Byddai'n rhaid iddynt dalu am gyfieithydd ar y pryd ar gyfer apêl.

 

Yn ystod busnes cyhoeddus a gweinyddu cyfiawnder, cyn belled ag y bo'n rhesymol ymarferol, yr ieithoedd Cymraeg a Saesneg yn cael eu trin ar y sail eu bod yn gyfartal.

 

Mae cyfieithydd yn rhesymol ymarferol cyn belled ag y gallaf ddweud!

 

Dim ond yn defnyddio Google gyfieithu.

 

So there! Appeal in Welsh and make them foot the cost of an interpreter too!

(By the way, not sure how the above will translate from Cymraeg-English)

Edited October 4, 2012 by firstclassx

[Old Snowy]

Da iawn. Maent yn wastraff ar amser.

[sploits]

Wel Nid oes gennyf unrhyw syniad beth ydych ddau yn siarad am haha

[firstclassx]

Wel Nid oes gennyf unrhyw syniad beth ydych ddau yn siarad am haha

 

Neither do the BPA

 

I believe the Welsh Language Act would allow an appeal to be made in Welsh. In addition to the appeal fee, they'd also have to pay for an interpreter. They couldn't refuse an appeal on the basis it is in Welsh IMO. You obviously just write in Welsh via Google translate unless you know someone who speaks it, or are actually from Wales

[Crocdoc]

Do excuse me while I get something written up in Gaelic.

 

There again I forgot I am not allowed to play in the PoPLA scheme, how very disapointing.