PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

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: 93
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  « < 8 9 10  
Start new topic
Replies (180 - 185)
Advertisement
post Fri, 1 Oct 2010 - 00:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Alexis
post Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 10:27
Post #181


Member


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



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.


The new Act states the keeper is 'invited' to provide driver details.

I doubt court claims will increase. In reality the keeper isn't the driver in the minority of cases. All it means is that if a PPC attempts court, the risk of them being ambushed having have sued the wrong person is removed.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Thu, 4 Oct 2012 - 09:25
Post #182


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,544
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Thea @ Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 21:56) *
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.

Now there's a lovey example of a well thought out payment for a quantifiable financial loss to the landowner ????


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Messiburna
post Sat, 9 Jan 2021 - 14:24
Post #183


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 9 Jan 2021
Member No.: 111,177



This is a good thing that I will always support but nonetheless drivers also need to act responsibly and park only where authorised, with managers of private car parks able to control parking through infrastructure, ticketing, signage and enforcement through local parking agreements with local governments. Towing of unauthorised vehicles will be used as a last resort.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 11 Jan 2021 - 10:11
Post #184


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47,291
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Yeah, you completely misunderstand what this is about in your 9 year resurrection.

Private car parks cannot be enforced through local government control, towing isn't permitted as that's classed the same as immobilisation under POFA.

I'm guessing you're a septic.


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ocelot
post Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 17:41
Post #185


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,092
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
From: Surrey
Member No.: 1,326



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 11 Jan 2021 - 10:11) *
Yeah, you completely misunderstand what this is about in your 9 year resurrection.

Private car parks cannot be enforced through local government control, towing isn't permitted as that's classed the same as immobilisation under POFA.

I'm guessing you're a septic.


Septic or sceptic? smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 17:59
Post #186


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,524
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (Ocelot @ Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 17:41) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 11 Jan 2021 - 10:11) *
Yeah, you completely misunderstand what this is about in your 9 year resurrection.

Private car parks cannot be enforced through local government control, towing isn't permitted as that's classed the same as immobilisation under POFA.

I'm guessing you're a septic.


Septic or sceptic? smile.gif

Thats a tough one rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10
Closed 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, 4th March 2021 - 04:00
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.