PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

How can this be fair
Dwain
post Wed, 16 May 2018 - 09:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 548
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Member No.: 6,174



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/arti...nt-driving.html

Daily wail, so be prepared for inaccuracies

So now the registered keeper is liable for the actions of others, how on earth did this become law?

Deain

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Advertisement
post Wed, 16 May 2018 - 09:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 16 May 2018 - 10:07
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,879
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Indeed, part of decriminalisation. It does stink but what alternatives?


--------------------
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
Fredd
post Wed, 16 May 2018 - 10:15
Post #3


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,119
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



Even by Daily Fail standards that's a completely rubbish article.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Wed, 16 May 2018 - 10:16
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,233
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



It might be rough justice but is it so unfair? Just as with decriminalised parking the infringement clearly happened & 90% of the time it will be the registered keeper who was driving/parking & if it wasn't they should know who was so can get reimbursed by the true offender who is thus fairly punished.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 16 May 2018 - 10:51
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,500
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Hardly comes under the heading of news!


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Wed, 16 May 2018 - 15:48
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,617
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Dwain @ Wed, 16 May 2018 - 10:58) *
So now the registered keeper is liable for the actions of others, how on earth did this become law?

What do you mean "now"? This has been the law for many, many years.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 16 May 2018 - 17:23
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,585
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Shock! News! Read! Wow!

Slow day at the office for that "journalist".


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


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
DancingDad
post Wed, 16 May 2018 - 20:21
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,372
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



And managed to miss virtually all due process while striving for sensationalism.

Guy who stopped for ambulance.
Assuming video bears out his story, slam dunk at adjudication.
And no surprise capita drones rejected if he was fixated on not being the driver.

"That means an innocent car owner being pursued for the charge has no right to defend themselves in court....."
True, but an adjudication hearing is a close second.
They would be a lot more aggrieved if it was a court with good chance of getting a higher penalty and costs against them for pleading not guilty and losing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 06:02
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,500
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I think the very worst bit ‘using a loophole’ - it’s the primary intent of the legislation so far from a loophole!

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 17 May 2018 - 06:02


--------------------
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
jjj1980
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 06:47
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,499



Due to personal experience of this rule, I disagree completely with it. All fines should be against the driver at the time the contravention occurred. Only when the Registered Owner refuses to name the driver should it then be against the Owner.

In my case (short version), I was woken very early one morning to find bailiffs clamping my car and asking for payment of just over £800 due to two unpaid parking tickets that had been issued months previously. After they confirmed the dates of the original tickets, I worked out they had occurred whilst I was very severely ill in hospital with pregnancy complications. Turned out my now-ex had been driving my car without my permission and without any insurance, got tickets which he ignored then hid or destroyed all further letters so I never knew about them. We had already separated at the time of the bailiffs visit as he was very abusive and a call to him to say he needed to come pay the money led to a lot of verbal abuse from him and a refusal.

There was absolutely no way I could have known about them and yet I was held responsible for for the debt incurred. I had hospital documentation that could quite clearly prove there was no way I had been driving. It also confirmed that due to my health situation at the time, I would not have been coherent enough to give anyone authority to use my car. None of this was accepted though and I was told because the car was registered to me, it was my responsibility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 07:30
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,617
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (jjj1980 @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 07:47) *
Due to personal experience of this rule, I disagree completely with it. All fines should be against the driver at the time the contravention occurred. Only when the Registered Owner refuses to name the driver should it then be against the Owner.

In my case (short version), I was woken very early one morning to find bailiffs clamping my car and asking for payment of just over £800 due to two unpaid parking tickets that had been issued months previously. After they confirmed the dates of the original tickets, I worked out they had occurred whilst I was very severely ill in hospital with pregnancy complications. Turned out my now-ex had been driving my car without my permission and without any insurance, got tickets which he ignored then hid or destroyed all further letters so I never knew about them. We had already separated at the time of the bailiffs visit as he was very abusive and a call to him to say he needed to come pay the money led to a lot of verbal abuse from him and a refusal.

There was absolutely no way I could have known about them and yet I was held responsible for for the debt incurred. I had hospital documentation that could quite clearly prove there was no way I had been driving. It also confirmed that due to my health situation at the time, I would not have been coherent enough to give anyone authority to use my car. None of this was accepted though and I was told because the car was registered to me, it was my responsibility.

Did you come here for advice? Did you follow the correct procedure to have the Order for Recovery revoked, and then appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal/London Tribunal?

To be perfectly honest if (for whatever reason) you hadn't received any paperwork prior to the bailiffs turning up, the outcome would have been the same even with driver liability.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jjj1980
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 06:23
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,499



[/quote]
Did you come here for advice? Did you follow the correct procedure to have the Order for Recovery revoked, and then appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal/London Tribunal?

To be perfectly honest if (for whatever reason) you hadn't received any paperwork prior to the bailiffs turning up, the outcome would have been the same even with driver liability.
[/quote]

At the time, I had no idea about this forum. So no, I hadn’t asked for help here. I was in the early stages of seeking a divorce due to the abuse from my then-husband. He had created massive rent arrears for the second time in a year without me knowing so we had had to leave the house we were renting and my daughter and I were living with my mum. As it turned out, the debt the bailiffs were asking for was just the start of it. I had to have months of counselling to help deal with what he put me through.

I guess my point is that I was able to prove absolutely that I was definitely not driving at the time the tickets were issued, would have been unaware/not in a fit state to permit anyone to use the car but none of this was taken into account. There was no interest from police or anyone regarding the fact he had driven uninsured. The policy should not be a blanket decision that the Registered Owner is always held liable no matter what the circumstances are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 06:31
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,508
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



See 8(5)(b) here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/34...gulation/8/made

If the circumstances permit then the owner has no liability
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 10:07
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,372
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Given the circumstances you describe, there is a chance we could have steered you through the legalities and got the things reset to an earlier and less expensive penalty.
But no guarantees and certainly not on that you were not the driver.
That bit is written into law and short of getting the law changed (lobby your MP) not a lot we can do about it.
TBH, for the majority it is not an issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 10:40
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,468
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



The whole UK system is set up so that registration plate = car. Car = registered keeper. RK = responsible.

It would be trivial to implement a system to track drivers, such as entering a code to disarm the immobiliser. In fact these are standard fit in some countries albeit for security reasons. However I suspect people would kick off about that as well.

That sort of system is ironically what would be made obligatory if the PACE ECHR case had succeeded.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Fri, 18 May 2018 - 10:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 10:43
Post #16


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,119
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 11:40) *
The whole UK system is set up so that registration plate = car. Car = registered keeper. RK = responsible.

What "whole UK system" did you have in mind?


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 11:43
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,617
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (jjj1980 @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 07:23) *
I guess my point is that I was able to prove absolutely that I was definitely not driving at the time the tickets were issued, would have been unaware/not in a fit state to permit anyone to use the car but none of this was taken into account. There was no interest from police or anyone regarding the fact he had driven uninsured. The policy should not be a blanket decision that the Registered Owner is always held liable no matter what the circumstances are.

From the circumstances you describe, we could have steered you thought the proper procedure to have the penalty re-set at least to the normal (not-discounted) penalty amount. We would have also had a decent chance of getting the matter appealed to the tribunal where you would have had a reasonable shot at getting the penalty cancelled completely and wouldn't have had to pay a penny. In this regard, it's unfortunate you found yourself in these circumstances with little or no knowledge of the relevant laws, and no access to competent legal advice.

@notmeatloaf, I don't want to get into a debate about this but I very much doubt retrofitting such a system to 30+ million vehicles would be "trivial". In reality the only alternative to owner liability would be to give councils s172-like powers, and I don't think they could be trusted with such powers; on balance owner liability is the lesser of two evils, considering the owner could still try and recover the penalty from the driver through the civil courts.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richy320
post Sun, 20 May 2018 - 16:57
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 4 Aug 2014
From: In the beautiful Chilterns
Member No.: 72,309



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 11:40) *
The whole UK system is set up so that registration plate = car. Car = registered keeper. RK = someone who can be screwed over for extra revenue

FTFY


--------------------
Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
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: Wednesday, 26th September 2018 - 11:47
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.