Private clamping ban, Single thread to discuss Protection of Freedoms Bill |
Private clamping ban, Single thread to discuss Protection of Freedoms Bill |
Fri, 1 Oct 2010 - 00:43
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 93 Joined: 24 Feb 2010 Member No.: 35,850 |
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 1 Oct 2010 - 00:43
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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?...
|
|
|
Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 18:43
Post
#162
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,769 Joined: 7 Nov 2009 Member No.: 33,505 |
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:11
Post
#165
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
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 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. |
|
|
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! |
|
|
Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:27
Post
#167
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:56
Post
#169
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 89 Joined: 26 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,374 |
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. |
|
|
Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 21:37
Post
#170
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,332 Joined: 10 Mar 2007 From: Midlands Member No.: 11,071 |
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 22:01
Post
#172
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 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. |
|
|
Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 07:53
Post
#173
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 766 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 |
|
|
Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 07:56
Post
#174
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 957 Joined: 13 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,486 |
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 08:46
Post
#176
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,564 Joined: 27 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,557 |
The title actually contradicts the content You got nothing to do at the moment? -------------------- accusare nemo se debet, nisi coram Deo |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:24 |