Changes to the Protection of freedoms act, Does it change anything? |
Helping the motorist get justice 
Helping the motorist get justice
Changes to the Protection of freedoms act, Does it change anything? |
 Sat, 1 Dec 2012 - 12:32
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 40 Joined: 1 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,646  |
Hi
I am always advocating (to friends and fellow vw owners on forums) that people ignore threats by menaces from private parking firms seeking their scandalous penalty invoices but I have recently been informed of a change to the Protection of Freedom act http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/guid...ing-charges.pdf Does this change anything and is the best course of advice still "to ignore but file the letters"? Sorry if this has been asked or covered elsewhere but I couldn't find it 
|
 |
 
|
 |
| Advertisement |
Sat, 1 Dec 2012 - 12:32
Post
#
|
 Advertise here! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat, 1 Dec 2012 - 12:36
Post
#2
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 8,582 Joined: 9 Feb 2006 Member No.: 4,813 |
Hiya Cruz. Honestly this question is asked at least once every couple of days and it's getting a bit boring to even answer now. Just read through a few of the more recent topics and you'll get enough info to address every question you can pose on POFA.
If you have got a ticket just let us have details and we can address it here but on the generality of POPLA you'll find all you need on the forum topics. -------------------- The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
|
|
|
|
|
Sat, 1 Dec 2012 - 17:53
Post
#3
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
When dealing with "tickets" from private parking companies (PPCs) the simplest advice is to ignore them. For more information about this recommendation and private parking companies, and other actions you might wish to consider, click this link.
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
|
|
Sat, 1 Dec 2012 - 18:18
Post
#4
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 757 Joined: 16 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,147 |
POFA 2012 imho changes nothing. Ignore everything except real stamped court papers.
-------------------- VCS v Ibbotson
Excel v Hetherington - Jakeman ParkingEye v Riyaz Patel Mayhook v National Car Parks & Nigel Barrington - Fuller When posting on pepipoo do not reveal any information that may enable private parking companies to identify you. They DO trawl this forum. Redact your name, address, pcn number, date of alleged contravention, date on speculative invoice, vehicle reg, vehicle picture, time you allegedly entered car park, time you allegedly left car park, time limit on the car park, the amount of time you allegedly overstay and the address / location of the car park. Also redact any barcodes or QR codes (if present) |
|
|
|
|
Sat, 1 Dec 2012 - 18:27
Post
#5
|
|
 Member  Group:  Life MemberPosts: 24,220 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
What changes have been made to the Protection of Freedoms Act?
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 2 Dec 2012 - 08:01
Post
#6
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,285 Joined: 5 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,178 |
So, you have a link to the PoFA. Did you actually read it? If so, you will know the answer to your own question.
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) |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Tuesday, 16th April 2024 - 17:14 |
