Private Parking Companies - Protection of Freedoms Bill - Clause 56

[ptang]

You may be aware that there is a clause in a bill before parliament at the moment that seems to be going unchallenged.

 

Part 3, Chapter 2, Clause 56 of The Protection of Freedoms is designed to make the registered keeper liable for any private parking fines where it is not possible to identify the driver responsible for the parking infringement. This clause has the backing of, and heavy lobbying from, the British Parking Association due to the revenue stream it will generate for its members.

 

The premis of innocent until proven guilty will be removed from a purely civil matter using heavy handed criminal powers.

 

There is a website that explains our opposition to this clause and how it will affect every driver in the UK:

 

stopclause56.org.uk

 

There is also an e-petition so we can let the government know that we are opposed:

 

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/6342

 

Please read, sign up and spread the word.

 

'tang.

Edited August 25, 2011 by ptang

[dx100uk]

they are not fines defined by law

 

dx

[ptang]

Yes, in a true sense PPCs issue invoices not fines - but that hasn't stopped them deliberately issuing "Parking Charge Notices" that look identical to "Penalty Charge Notices" to frighten the public into paying quickly.

[sequenci]

Ptang, do you know where I can read the proposed bill?

[ptang]

look at the Gov's e-portal version of the bill.

[dx100uk]

sorry this is nothing new then

 

and we do not allow external links either

 

dx

[ptang]

Can I take it that means you have signed the petition dx? Or are you, like the rest of the UK, suffering with consumer apathy?

[sequenci]

sorry this is nothing new then

 

 

It's not something I've come across before, no doubt it's been discussed on here but I rarely get to cover parking issues. The bill is proposing that car owners (rather than just those that a driving) can be chased for payment of parking charges.

 

If that is how I understand it then this is a VERY serious issue indeed.

[dx100uk]

at the end of the day they are unenforceable speculative invoices

 

yes this will give them another target

 

this doesn't give them any more legal powers

 

dx

[sequenci]

at the end of the day they are unenforceable speculative invoices

 

yes this will give them another target

 

this doesn't give them any more legal powers

 

dx

 

I think you're missing the point my good man. The vast majority of success is because action can only succeed against those that actually contract with the parking firm; this bill is likely to throw a massive spanner in the works. There are still arguments for sure but they would be significantly reduced.

[ptang]

this doesn't give them any more legal powers

 

Actually you have completely missed the point...

 

Clause 56 DOES give them new legal powers to persue the registered keeper of a vehicle and not just the driver. If in the event the driver can not be identified then the keeper is liable for the penalties as imposed by the parking contract. This is the use of criminal powers applied to a civil case - the thin end of the wedge.

 

Because of clause 56, the invoices/PCNs cease to be speculative and can be imposed on the vehicle keeper legally.

 

Bury your head if you wish but don't say we didn't warn you.

[ptang]

We've passed 150 signatures but we need more.

 

Please go to the e-petition or separate website and spread the work using the facebook, linkedin, twitter links!

 

'tang.

[ptang]

As some of you may know, this e-petition was mentioned by Honest John (The Daily Telegraph's Motoring advice columnist) on Saturday as he is also staunchly against the new legislation in Clause 56 and since then the petition has jumped from 160ish to over 1,400 signatories.

 

We are also getting some traction from Facebook and Twitter. Anything you can do to help is good for all of us!

 

I know there have been some detractors on various forums in the electronic ether so we'd like to remind you all of four points:

 

1) This only relates to parking on private land (supermarkets etc).

2) Parking on private land is covered by civil contract law.

3) By parking a vehicle in a private car park the driver is entering into a civil contract with the owner.

4) The registered keeper of the vehicle is NOT involved in that contract (The keeper and driver may be the same person but legally they are two separate entities).

 

So this new legislation will hold the registered keeper, even although they had no part in the civil contract, liable for the parking charges/penalties in the event the driver can not be identified.

 

The BPA are using the "name the driver or you'll pay" tactic even although as the registered keeper played no part in the contract they are under no obligation to become involved in a civil case.

 

This is my problem - I do not condone parking in contravention of the contract with the owner - I am against a fundamental change to civil contract law.

 

Likewise, the legislation requires the parking operator to meet certain conditions before they can pursue the registerd keeper BUT it places no burden of proof on them to show that these conditions have been met nor does it provide a system of dispute resolution where these conditions are not met.

 

I created the e-petition for these reasons and the many more listed by the different consumer groups who also oppose this but seem to be doing nothing about it.

 

All the best.

 

'tang.