PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Private clamping ban, Single thread to discuss Protection of Freedoms Bill
ollielumley
post Fri, 1 Oct 2010 - 00:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 24 Feb 2010
Member No.: 35,850



hardly a great surprise...
Attached Image

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >  
Start new topic
Replies (160 - 179)
Advertisement
post Fri, 1 Oct 2010 - 00:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ruffled
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 18:34
Post #161


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,448



i agree with above nevertheless it appears these abhorrent companies are now going to 'get away with it' due to new laws in respect of contacting registered keepers of vehicles. however, i can't see why one can't give some unknown name and address as to who was the driver?......or indeed, if the keeper has to BY LAW respond?...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DBC
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 18:43
Post #162


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,769
Joined: 7 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,505



QUOTE (ruffled @ Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 19:12) *
please tell me:

if said private ticket company can now legally enforce disclosure of driver from registered owner - what would happen if said owner says driver was donald duck, of duck road, duck city etc........in other words, the ticket would be requested to be paid from some completely unknown name and address so would be in turn 'ignored'. then what do they do?


If you refuse to name the driver they can't do much about it. This is part of the reply I received from Transport Minister Norman Baker:-

The alternative option was to make it a criminal offence for the keeper to refuse to name the driver in charge of the vehicle. This was discarded because criminal sanctions were deemed a disproportionate sanction to a parking charge on private property.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alexis
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 19:44
Post #163


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,151
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
From: Manchester
Member No.: 15,638



They would not 'know' the identity of the driver and they would know it. They'd just carry on pursuing the keeper.

You would need to tweak your hypothetical plan slightly.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ruffled
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:01
Post #164


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,448



ok. thanks. was wondering what would happen in that case. so, it appears that one is now legally obliged to answer all correspondence from these companies - either by naming driver or paying up as the registered keeper. previously, i ignored approximately 50 papers of correspondence from flashpark and debtors. they actually stopped. now - unsure what to do dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:11
Post #165


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,009
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (ruffled @ Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 21:01) *
ok. thanks. was wondering what would happen in that case. so, it appears that one is now legally obliged to answer all correspondence from these companies - either by naming driver or paying up as the registered keeper. previously, i ignored approximately 50 papers of correspondence from flashpark and debtors. they actually stopped. now - unsure what to do dry.gif


Rubbish. One is not legally obliged to answer anything of the sort. The driver or registered keeper can still ignore them, nothing has changed with the law in respect of the unenforceability of these charges.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ruffled
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:27
Post #166


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,448



well if that's the case, then superb.
i ignored everything in the past as advised and absolutely nothing happened..... they gave up.
i am hoping to be as brave again..thank you! biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:27
Post #167


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,926
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



exactly !


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alexis
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:44
Post #168


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,151
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
From: Manchester
Member No.: 15,638



The wording of the Act is actually that the PPC can 'invite' the keeper to name the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thea
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:56
Post #169


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,374



QUOTE (DBC @ Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 18:00) *
Ans we have our old freind Trevor Whitehouse chiming in:-

Trevor Whitehouse of National Clamps, whose clients include Oxford University, said: ‘We charge £80 to unclamp a vehicle, which is a lot less than some operators. But from next week we’ll be putting our penalty tickets up to £100 "


Nice of him to acknowledge on the record that it's a penalty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
axeman
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 21:37
Post #170


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,332
Joined: 10 Mar 2007
From: Midlands
Member No.: 11,071



QUOTE (ruffled @ Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 19:12) *
please tell me:

if said private ticket company can now legally enforce disclosure of driver from registered owner - what would happen if said owner says driver was donald duck, of duck road, duck city etc........in other words, the ticket would be requested to be paid from some completely unknown name and address so would be in turn 'ignored'. then what do they do?


already covered earlier in this thread, not a wise move, have a read


--------------------
NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved" and do not constitute legal advice. Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thundergar
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 21:51
Post #171


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Member No.: 49,814



Similar to 'Ruffled' I have ignored a wad of tickets caused by an unfriendly neighbourhood association determined to squeeze a visitors parking space onto an access road by my house thereby obstructing access to my drive.
If someone uses their stupid space I can't nose forward then back into my drive so I occupy it to ensure access.
I honestly can't remember who parked the car last, so is ignorance a defence? Or would I be better to just ignore them like before.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 22:01
Post #172


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,009
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Ignorance is not a defence. Thankfully you have plenty of others available.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pete P
post Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 07:53
Post #173


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 720
Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,092



As the title. It's good that clamping and towing are banned now, but it also makes the RK responsible for PPC tickets instead of just the driver. Does this mean the companies more easily have them enforced?


--------------------
QUOTE
I discussed about it with solicitor and he said nothing to worry maximum £100 fine. On 30th July 2014 it was our Eid Day and because of Solicitor views
I didn't appear into the court and court issued me 6points on driving licence and total £745 fine. I paid and got points on licence.

PPC 1 - 7 Me
Council (bastards!) 3 - 2 Me
Pending: 2
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Basfordlad
post Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 07:56
Post #174


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 957
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,486



QUOTE (Pete P @ Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 08:53) *
As the title. It's good that clamping and towing are banned now, but it also makes the RK responsible for PPC tickets instead of just the driver. Does this mean the companies more easily have them enforced?


Not at all! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ppc_guy
post Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 08:01
Post #175


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Member No.: 56,143



The title actually contradicts the content tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ItchyCrakus
post Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 08:46
Post #176


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,564
Joined: 27 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,557



QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 09:01) *
The title actually contradicts the content tongue.gif



You got nothing to do at the moment? biggrin.gif


--------------------


accusare nemo se debet, nisi coram Deo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 09:00
Post #177


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



The BPA have managed quite an effective campaign to convince some of the media that they can now be enforced

I prefer the Department for Transport interpretation.

In their Guidance Notes they effectively say that nothing has changed and draw attention to the issue that only the PPC losses can be claimed. They also refer to Unfair Contract regulations regarding Terms and Conditions.

In other words, the PPC may be entitled to the cost of an unpaid parking fee plus direct costs.
Even this is questionable according to VCS v HMRC

They're not entitled to to the £100 payments that BPA suggest to be a fair calculation of their loss.
Several members spent yesterday collecting tickets to test the "independent" appeal system on this point

The only real difference is that a PPC that cannot identify the driver doesn't risk DVLA sanctions if it holds the RK liable for an unenforceable invoice
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alexis
post Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 09:26
Post #178


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,151
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
From: Manchester
Member No.: 15,638



Contract law has not altered in any way.

Only difference, is if you are one of the 0.1% of people taken to court and you were the keeper but not the driver, but had not informed the PPC, in theory you would have to defend.

The onus would still be on the PPC to make their claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ruffled
post Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 09:48
Post #179


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,448



That makes sense, however, does this mean we continue to ignore the 'tickets' or do we respond stating we are the keeper/driver and we will not be paying. Which element of this new law is actually legal - paying or responding or neither?! The BPA statements and media succinctly imply that we have a legal obligation to reply as the keeper..... very, very confused. I received huge numbers of tickets last year as I have to park in a space on a (questionably) private road in order to protect access in and out of my own driveway; thus I was ticketed/photographed every day by neighbours. I ignored all of them and they stopped - but now? It appears that court summons will be used frequently as they can actually point to the keeper for the payment of ticket and I never received a court summons last year - just debt collectors letters and obviously the company themselves - FLASHPARK.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 10:12
Post #180


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,012
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



QUOTE (ruffled @ Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 10:48) *
That makes sense, however, does this mean we continue to ignore the 'tickets' or do we respond stating we are the keeper/driver and we will not be paying. Which element of this new law is actually legal - paying or responding or neither?! The BPA statements and media succinctly imply that we have a legal obligation to reply as the keeper..... very, very confused. I received huge numbers of tickets last year as I have to park in a space on a (questionably) private road in order to protect access in and out of my own driveway; thus I was ticketed/photographed every day by neighbours. I ignored all of them and they stopped - but now? It appears that court summons will be used frequently as they can actually point to the keeper for the payment of ticket and I never received a court summons last year - just debt collectors letters and obviously the company themselves - FLASHPARK.

See the updated advice on the Sticky


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 2nd June 2020 - 23:01
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.