Jump to content


Freeedoms Bill - A lot of questions answered here.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3984 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

But remember...........this is from the BPA !

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but like Martin rightly pointed out, this from the BPA.

 

I might have to go out and test the water on a few issues, which I'll update here..

 

I'm good thank you, I've not been anywhere, just not as prominent these days, and

no battles to fight like in the good old days, hope you're ok too! :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

How will the Independant Appeals Service differentiate when a Notice to Keeper is issued to a driver in Scotland where the Freedoms Act wiil not apply?

 

Each operator will be required to have processes in place to differentiate the origin of the parking ticket. If a Notice to Keeper is issued to a driver under the terms of PoFA, it will not be lawful. However that driver will also not have the privilege of using the independent appeals service.

 

I like the words in bold, shame i wont be able to use the independant appeals for an unlawful notice to keeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
the freedoms bill sounds scary saying that keepers can be chased for charges that is so unfair! has anyone got any experience on this issue? i have been sent an £85 charge for parking in morrisons in stratford

 

Can they really chase the Keeper though? They have no proof the keeper ever entered a contract and the contract which was agreed to by an unknown entity should have no power over any 3rd party to whome never agreed to the implied contract. Is this right? Surely they can't use the freedoms act to unwilfully force you into a CONtract?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Mike but I did some serious reading up and I think they can chase the registered keeper to pay. The problem is that when this bill was being debated no one realised this very important law was slipped in. The problem with enforcing parking was always that they had to prove who was driving at the time but now all they have to do is show the car was there and then it is up to the registered keeper to say who was driving at the time. If they do not say who was driving their car then the registered keeper is liable. I hope someone else can say something different because this now means we cannot ignore parking charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(assuming the driver isn't the keeper) Even if they know who the driver is and he refuses to pay, they can still charge the keeper after 28 days... this also means if you rent a car and get a parking ticket, which the company pass onto you and you refuse to pay the hire cars owners will be charged, and if the hire company just pays they have valid legal reasons to claim the money off you.

 

If that's true I may start my own car hire company, then stalk the hirer until he/she parks and give them a £1000 ticket and if they refuse to pay after 28 days. After paying the money into my own account, Say that I the hire company paid for the ticket and you have a solid signed and dated contract to hold the hirer responsible for the damages. This really shouldn't exsist :S

Link to post
Share on other sites

(assuming the driver isn't the keeper) Even if they know who the driver is and he refuses to pay, they can still charge the keeper after 28 days...

 

No, once the PPC has been informed of the name and address of the driver, the RK has no further liability and the PPC can then only chase the named driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found something in the POFA, it says that

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 (claiming unpaid charges from the keeper)

( Paragraph 5) (1) The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

 

So as I read that it's more or less stating that they must have the legal authority (which basically means a judgement in court) to ENFORCE the charges onto the driver before holding the keeper responsible for the charges right?

After 28 days however section 1b ceases to apply, but they would still need a court case to enforce this charge (If you never named the driver and/or never turned up to court they could win by default, I assume?).

 

I assume that's what it means, Unless somewhere in the document they have something to invalidate that as well, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So as I read that it's more or less stating that they must have the legal authority (which basically means a judgement in court) to ENFORCE the charges onto the driver before holding the keeper responsible for the charges right?

 

Wrong, If they know the name and address of the driver, the RK no longer has any liability and the PPC can only chase/issue a court claim to that named driver They can only chase/ issue a court claim to the RK where either the RK admits to being the driver or refuses to give name and address of the driver.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Here is an interesting question.

 

Bailiff clamps a car that does not belong to a debtor.

It is on a private drive.

the car has no parking tickets issued against it.

the owner is not a debtor of any kind. (debt is someone elses)

Did he have "legal authority" to clamp.

If not, is he in breach of POFA (54)

 

I would be interested to hear your views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
the link on BPA's site has been removed - what a shame as I hoped to read it.... perhaps they're looking for another vague law to use instead :razz:

 

Ooooo, couldnt help posting to you....I am rather sad, in that private parking issues have become my hobby!

What I would like to point out is that the BPA is made up by the very companies that send you these invoices...and that is all they are!

 

For instance, I know for sure that Roxburghe's managing director is on the BPA board.....His name is Gary Osner, and he turned up at my partners court case( which they lost), and claimed he was the driver!!!! Ha ha ha ...still laughing about it now.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooo, couldnt help posting to you....I am rather sad, in that private parking issues have become my hobby!

What I would like to point out is that the BPA is made up by the very companies that send you these invoices...and that is all they are!

 

For instance, I know for sure that Roxburghe's managing director is on the BPA board.....His name is Gary Osner, and he turned up at my partners court case( which they lost), and claimed he was the driver!!!! Ha ha ha ...still laughing about it now.....

 

Any chance you could give more info on that?

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Has any one else noted that the Protection of freedoms Act that came into force in October 2012 also amended the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

 

It expanded the definition of road (highway maintained at public expense) to include "or other land".

 

The Secretary of State for Transport ( DVLA) can then by regulation (SI introduced by the DVLA) delegate the powers of the local council to the parking management companies of the BPA.

 

That will mean that a single MP ( Mike Penning ?) will have the power to reverse the Protection of Freedoms Act and legalize the the clamping and towing away from private land.The Rogue Clampers will then be legalized.

 

Keep checking the Draft SI's to see when that happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Registered Keeper is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle and very few Keepers can actually prove that they own the vehicle. The registered keeper does not necessarily need a driving license so making your aged aunt who is registered blind the registered keeper solves a lot of problems.

The vehicle owner (who is not registered by the DVLA and cannot be located by the DVLA) can permit any licensed driver who has his own "Any other vehicle" insurance policy to drive that vehicle without the knowledge of the registered keeper. Thus limiting the powers of the BPA to practically nil.

 

Unless of course the DVLA extend another SI to those Rogue Clampers and that states " References to the owner are to the person who is the keeper of the vehicle at that time"

 

In recording a date, time and place of all vehicles, is the parking management company actually invading the privacy of the drivers of the other cars, not the ones who overstay, which might make the ANPR cameras unlawful .

 

Food for thought?

Edited by Big Bill
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Mike but I did some serious reading up and I think they can chase the registered keeper to pay. The problem is that when this bill was being debated no one realised this very important law was slipped in. The problem with enforcing parking was always that they had to prove who was driving at the time but now all they have to do is show the car was there and then it is up to the registered keeper to say who was driving at the time. If they do not say who was driving their car then the registered keeper is liable. I hope someone else can say something different because this now means we cannot ignore parking charges.

 

I had a invoice from TCP asking for £70 under the new bill for an alleged contravention in asda (Free fo 3 Hours) It was night time, left the car running in a disabled bay while using the ATM, no one else about, didnt even get a PCN. I argued that TCP did not own the land and had no legal right to enter into a contract with a land user on behalf of the land owner.

 

Result..... Appology from TCP

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also was issued with a parking fine (*) from Smart Parking Ltd, for parking in a disabled space at my local Sainsbury's, I know its wrong but at least 10 spaces were empty and I was in a hurry to collect a prescription from the pharmacy. I accept, not a very good excuse but it's done now and I have a £60.00 fine, reduced to £30.00 if I pay within two weeks. I don't particularly want to pay this, even though I accept I was in error but how does the fine work since there was no loss of income because it's free parking for 2hrs and I was only there for a few minutes, also at least 10 of the twelve disabled bays were empty, well 9 after I parked. Can I argue anything here?

 

Further I do not understand the above argument:

"that TCP did not own the land and had no legal right to enter into a contract with a land user on behalf of the land owner"!

Thanks

 

(*) Just checked my ticket, it is called a Parking Charge Notice and referred to as a PCN on the parking ticket.

Edited by Dan6470
extra details
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also was issued with a parking fine (*) from Smart Parking Ltd, for parking in a disabled space at my local Sainsbury's, I know its wrong but at least 10 spaces were empty and I was in a hurry to collect a prescription from the pharmacy. I accept, not a very good excuse but it's done now and I have a £60.00 fine, reduced to £30.00 if I pay within two weeks. I don't particularly want to pay this, even though I accept I was in error but how does the fine work since there was no loss of income because it's free parking for 2hrs and I was only there for a few minutes, also at least 10 of the twelve disabled bays were empty, well 9 after I parked. Can I argue anything here?

 

Further I do not understand the above argument:

"that TCP did not own the land and had no legal right to enter into a contract with a land user on behalf of the land owner"!

Thanks

 

(*) Just checked my ticket, it is called a Parking Charge Notice and referred to as a PCN on the parking ticket.

 

Mouse over the word IGNORE in this reply and follow the info

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3984 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...