Protection of Freedoms act 2012

[itstheone]

Hi Guys,

 

Does schedule 4 of this act make any difference to private parking companys or is it only for Local Authoritys?

 

Bit confused TBH

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

[Sidewinder]

It applies to Private Parking Companies, however makes no real difference, for whilst it permits the PPC to pursue the RK of a vehicle for any charges, the PPC still has to overcome the hurdles of any charge being a penalty and therefore unenforceable, and also whether the PPC has the right in law to pursue legal action on behalf of the landowner.

 

Very little change in actual fact!

[itstheone]

Ok thanks,

I did see something in there about making it an offence to not name the driver but, as you say, they still have to jump through all the other hoops.

 

I seem to remember when the Government were talking about banning clamping it was mooted to make it easier for Parking Companies to enforce their tickets.

 

Let's hope there isn't an amendment coming then!

[DBC]

I don't think that there is any mention of an offence of refusing to name the driver.

[itstheone]

I don't think that there is any mention of an offence of refusing to name the driver.

 

Ok, it was this bit, doesn't mention an offence but i just assumed the RK had to tell them

 

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

 

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

 

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

 

I said i was a bit confused :-/

[DBC]

I shall repost this again (from another forum) if you want some reassurance:-

 

There is a lot of misinformation around concerning the Protection of Freedoms Act. This is largely pedalled by the private parking companies in an attempt to add some kind of legitimacy to their charges, not helped by sloppy and lazy journalism which regurgitates what the parking companies say without checking if it's true or not.

 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduces the concept of Keeper Liability for private parking charges if the registered keeper fails to divulge who the driver was. That is all.

It does not make parking charges enforceable (or any more enforceable than they were before, which, on the whole is not enforceable at all)

It does not require the registered keeper to name the driver on request - there is no obligation. If the keeper fails to name the driver, the "liability" (such as it is) reverts to the keeper (see previous point). If the driver and keeper are the same person, then there is no difference anyway.

It does not set out any kind of statutory framework for parking charges, they are still based on contract law or trespass, and in that respect nothing has changed

It does not define the wording that must be used to make parking charge notices "legal", "enforceable" or "valid". The Act sets out wording and points that must be included in order for the parking company to be able to apply keeper liability, but using all the correct words does not make the notice any more legally enforceable than it was before (see point 1)

 

 

[lamma]

See the most informative guidance on Schedule 4 issued by the DfT.