PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Proposed changes to Scottish law
Sweven
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 23:05
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 6 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,034



Murdo Fraser MSP, a Conservative politician in the Scottish parliament is to propose new legislation on private parking charges and 'penalties'.

He outlines his thinking on

https://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics...read_full=13397

Whilst using language presenting this as in defence of the driver, I can't help but feel suspicious that he may be pandering to the companies.

The main thrust seems to be to bring Scots law in line with the changes made to English law over the past few years including keeper liability.

What parts of English law would you suggest we adopt, and which should we run a mile from?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 23:05
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
StuartBu
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 01:01
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,924
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (Sweven @ Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 23:05) *
Murdo Fraser MSP, a Conservative politician in the Scottish parliament is to propose new legislation on private parking charges and 'penalties'.

He outlines his thinking on

https://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics...read_full=13397

Whilst using language presenting this as in defence of the driver, I can't help but feel suspicious that he may be pandering to the companies.

The main thrust seems to be to bring Scots law in line with the changes made to English law over the past few years including keeper liability.

What parts of English law would you suggest we adopt, and which should we run a mile from?


Going by the activities we see in here and these are mainly English situations is there much ,if anything ,Scots would want to see employed here . We were years ahead of England with regard to the restrictions on clamping and England would do well to adopt the Scots view on Keeper Liability . If the keeper can turn a blind eye to any notification of a penalty they receive then why would anyone with half a brain want to change that ....more to the point make sure that more motorists know what to do if they do receive a penalty
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sweven
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 09:12
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 6 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,034



There is a consultation on this on the Scottish Parliament website which I intend to respond to, but it doesn't close until next March so no rush.

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybu...lls/106912.aspx

It's not going to be good enough to say "the Scottish system is fine, don't change it" - clearly it's not fine, and if there are lessons to be learnt from the changes in England then we should do so.

For instance, has the creation of POPLA been a good thing overall?

I personally am strongly opposed to keeper liability for parking, and am worried that (given that Murdo Fraser is Conservative) the main point of this is to sneak this in under the cover of helping drivers. But perhaps there are some good reasons for keeper liability from the driver's point of view.

So I'd really appreciate some feedback from some of the experts on here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 10:40
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,377
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



My take
1/ Landowners do deserve protection from abusive parking, it happens, it may not be the major issue that the number of PPC tickets suggest it is, but that's not the key issue, PoFA does improve the potential protection. There have been a few high profile Scottish cases that demonstrate the level of abuse some drivers are willing to resort to, and Barry Beavis was hardly an innocent victim in that respect, it wasn't question that he knew the landowners wishes and chose to ignore them, having to prove who the driver was of car regularly abusing a car aprk shouldn't be necessary, if there wasn't that type of abuse then I may argue against it.
2/ POPLA has generally been a good thing, but the IAS is a farce, what is needed is a proper independent fact based arbitration system which is truly independent and run separately from the BPA and IPC, I would not like that system to replace the courts as a final arbiter otherwise they will have to be as complex as a court which negates the benefit to both the PPC and the appellant of a quick, simple paper based approach. POPLA has most certainly lost some of its shine as the BPA seeks to compete with the IPC and that is as much the fault of the DVLA as anyone (see point 3)
3/ The DVLA needs to be far more responsible about ATA status, the IPC should not be an ATA (it never matched up to what the BPA offered motorists from the start and has only gone one way since) and the DVLA is seriously remiss in not policing ATA status more rigorously, as it happens the same applies to approved ADR status of the IAS but that Ican't blame the DVLA for.

So in summary, yes to keeper liability but only in conjunction with
1/ Properly policed ATA status
2/ A single (so the same for all events) fair and independent appeals service
3/ A single set of rules (that the ATA's must include in their CoP) that all parties can be aware of and that will be used by the appeals service to arbitrate on indisputable facts only (court for contested facts, which would be limited by that single set of rules).


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 18:48
Post #5


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 1,422
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



There is also this ACT which would pander to the companies.


--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 23:08
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,732
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Seems to me this MSP is attacking the wrong target. Scottish law is seriously deficient when it comes to registration of debts at the sheriffs court. Unlike England there is no process like the English Statutory Declaration/Witness Statement to declare that enforcement documents have not been received. This is a serious hole in the legal process in Scotland
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 06:00
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,609
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



QUOTE
Barry Beavis was hardly an innocent victim in that respect,


He would have been in time if Staples hadn't messed up and made him late as i recall. Not sure how that fits in to your story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
orangefalcon40
post Wed, 20 Dec 2017 - 10:59
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 20 Dec 2017
From: Edinburgh
Member No.: 95,640



The Bill is now open to consultation :-

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliame...lls/106912.aspx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Half_way
post Wed, 20 Dec 2017 - 17:19
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 302
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Member No.: 57,365



QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 06:00) *
QUOTE
Barry Beavis was hardly an innocent victim in that respect,


He would have been in time if Staples hadn't messed up and made him late as i recall. Not sure how that fits in to your story.

Why more wasnt made of the reasons for the overstay, i dont know.

As for Keeper liability, in my opinion this needs to be looked at urgently with the idea of scrapping it altogether. If the registered keeper wasnt driving the parking companies are in effect making someone liable for the actions of someone else
how you can contractually agree ( to use a ppc term) to something you are not privy to i dont know.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 20 Dec 2017 - 18:06
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,670
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



The act steps around that - by making the keeper liable for the driver’s unpaid parking charge and not a party to that contract. Some may disagree with that ‘contortion’.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 - 18:07


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spudandros
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 19:29
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 146
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



Read this. Fraser backed a previous attempt by the BPA to bring in keeper liability in Scotland. Everyone should log onto the the Scottish Parliament website and point out the disaster and court shambles keeper liability has heap-ed on other parts of the UK. This is a Trojan Horse.

http://www.murdofraser.com/murdo-backs-bri...on-in-scotland/

This post has been edited by Spudandros: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 19:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 22:10
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,614
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Spudandros @ Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 19:29) *
Read this. Fraser backed a previous attempt by the BPA to bring in keeper liability in Scotland. Everyone should log onto the the Scottish Parliament website and point out the disaster and court shambles keeper liability has heap-ed on other parts of the UK. This is a Trojan Horse.

http://www.murdofraser.com/murdo-backs-bri...on-in-scotland/

That's not what the linked blog post says. It says he backed the BPA's call for a "single standard setting body, accountable to government, and which can be fully funded by the private parking sector", and says nothing at all about keeper liability. Did you intend to link to something else?

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Thursday, 24th May 2018 - 02:32
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.