D Day for private parking 1.10.2012

Honest John Back Room » Legal matters
What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
View Threaded
Fri 10 Aug 2012 15:57
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Dwight Van Driver

As HMG promised Commencement Order has been published:

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2012

Provisions coming into force on 1st October 2012

3. The day appointed for the coming into force of the following provisions of the Act is 1st October 2012—

(a)section 54 (offence of immobilising etc. vehicles);[Clamping]

(b)section 55 (extension of powers to remove vehicles from land);

(c)section 56 (recovery of unpaid parking charges) in relation to England; [Parking on private land]

(f)Schedule 4 (recovery of unpaid parking charges) in relation to England;

dvd

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 10 Aug 2012 16:40
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - concrete

What a sad, sad day for so called British justice. The whole system of innocent until proven guilty turned on its head for a few vested interest groups. That is definitely it for me, Cameron et al can go and run if they they will ever get my vote again. Roll on 2015 so we can kick this bunch of self centred charlatans out of office. Concrete

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 11 Aug 2012 07:35
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Dwight Van Driver

Wasn't Labour in power when this Act [Bill] first concieved Concrete?

dvd

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 14 Aug 2012 11:00
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - concrete

You may be correct dvd. My disgust is not politically motivated, I think the vast majority of politicians are at worst self serving and best just plainly under qualified for the role they have. The sheer injustice of the way this act is structured in favour of vested interest groups is breathtaking and I would have expected Cameron and co to have spotted this and made the neccesary adjustments. After all there were several campaigns and lots ot letters written to point out the faults in this act. Whatever the political hue of any politician their prime concern is to protect the freedom of people they represent. Not the BPA. I rest my case. Cheers Concrete

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 14 Aug 2012 11:00
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - concrete

You may be correct dvd. My disgust is not politically motivated, I think the vast majority of politicians are at worst self serving and best just plainly under qualified for the role they have. The sheer injustice of the way this act is structured in favour of vested interest groups is breathtaking and I would have expected Cameron and co to have spotted this and made the neccesary adjustments. After all there were several campaigns and lots ot letters written to point out the faults in this act. Whatever the political hue of any politician their prime concern is to protect the freedom of people they represent. Not the BPA. I rest my case. Cheers Concrete

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 14 Aug 2012 15:01
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Cris_on_the_gas

Just read the act and please can some explain what the problem with it is ?

Cheers

Chris

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 14 Aug 2012 16:59
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - concrete

Hello Chris, you must have missed all the previous discussion about certain sections, which DVD highlighted in this thread. Basically it gives power to private parking companies to pursue the registered keeper of an 'offending' vehicle, whether that person was driving the vehicle or not. This power which is intended to force the registered keeper to find out who was driving and then inform these private companies is presently only in the hands of properly constituted authorities i.e. police and local authorities under criminal law. Are you happy that companies whose sole aim is make profit from 'offending' drivers is now able to have this power? It is like putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse. Do you honestly believe that they will excercise this power with any form of discretion or justice? To me it's simply a way to use the law to expand their profit margins at the expense of many an unfortunate motorist. Which would you rather have- guilty until proved innocent or the other way around? Well, soon you won't have that choice if you fall foul of a private parking company. This has been a long drawn out topic in the forum and every form of argument has been aired and countered. I hope my simple explanation helps you understand the matter better. Cheers Concrete

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 15 Aug 2012 10:47
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Cris_on_the_gas

Hello Concrete.

Yes i can see it gives people powers to chase debitors.

however reading schedule 4, paragraph 7 it states

The notice must be given before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and while the vehicle is stationary, by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.

Does this mean that they can only chase a debitor if a notice has either been placed on the vehicle or handed to the driver. So will this stop them using ANPR cameras to chase debitors as they do now.

Cheers

Chris

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 15 Aug 2012 16:13
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Dwight Van Driver

Under statutory decriminalised parking offences the get out clause that a PCN had to be placed on the vehicle or handed to the drive only to be served was amended to include that if the Officer had started to make out the ticket but was prevented from handing to driver etc. then it is permissable to send the PCN by Post to the Keeper..

This does not seem to be included in these new rules and it does state that the power to chase the Keeper (presumably because the fee has not been paid) is conditional that a ticket has been placed on the vehicle or handed to the driver setting out terms beforehand .No doubt an ommission that will be plugged by a further amending Order.

This in my opinion is one of the worst bits of legislation for Joe Public to try and make sense of.

What worries me is what is the procedure for an appeal? Doesn't seem to have an independent adjudicator so appealing to the issuer of the ticket is as much use as a one legged man at an R's kicking contest..

dvd

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 15 Aug 2012 16:48
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Cris_on_the_gas

The way I' reading it the get out clause is there and even clearer than before.

schedule 4, paragraph 7 states

The notice must be given before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and while the vehicle is stationary, by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.

In addition the use of wheel clamps is now an offence and the removal of them by the driver is no longer a criminal offence, which in my opinion is a better situation than current.

So from October if you park somewhere, the terms have to be clearly signed, if you infringe these terms then notice must be served as above. The law seems to give the owner of the land the power to find the driver and pursue the costs directly from them. As I understand it this would still have to be done through the legal system so you are not guilty until proven guilty.

no more jokes about 1 legged men please or I'll kick your a*** !

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 16 Aug 2012 11:45
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Neiltoo

I understand the new arrangement for establishing the identity of the driver, but does the legislation change the relationship apropos the legality of the demand for payment.

Can one still ignore the parking charge notice when it arrives, Is it still a civil issue with regard to contract law?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 16 Aug 2012 15:21
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - concrete

Firstly to the point raised by Neiltoo, from 1/10/12 you can ignore the parking charge notice, but they then have the power to pursue you as the keeper, whether driving or not. Your only get out is to name the driver.

Chris, landowners i.e tesco, asda etc do not chase drivers themselves, they use these sharks called private parking enforcement companies. As above, they will chase the keeper of the vehicle and if the keeper cannot or will not name the driver then the keeper will be pursued for the money, WHETHER GUILTY OR NOT. If this was your vehicle and you could not name the 'offending' driver would you expect to be fined for something you did not do? No matter which way you put this it is guilty until you prove your innocence. The burden of proof is on you, not them. Do you really trust these sharks to behave properly, or to take the easy route and pursue the keeper? Go figure. As for the use of the legal system, this is a slam dunk! They will have to take you to the County Court to get a judgement against you. However now the law is on their side because the misnamed Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 gives them the power to recover the 'fine' for an offending vehicle from the KEEPER, guilty or not. Once they have the judgement they can enforce this through the Court Bailiff and you have to pay and have a black mark on your credit record. So much for being innocent or relying on British justice, the whole thing stinks and our politicians should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen. Concrete.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 16 Aug 2012 16:15
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Bromptonaut

Schedule 4 is, as DVD observes, a pretty poor piece of drafting but I don't think Para 7 is a 'Get off Free' card.

Para 6 is also relevant; 6(1) (a) or (b) give the parking company two possible lines of pursuit. Notice may be given either by ticketing the car per para 7 and then serving Notice on the Keeper per para 8 or by notice directly to keeper in accordance with para 9.

The second seems to me to allow for ANPR etc.

Edited by Bromptonaut on 16/08/2012 at 16:23

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 21 Aug 2012 20:38
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - IRC

Does the new act apply in Scotland?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 22 Aug 2012 08:25
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Dwight Van Driver

Work it out yourself....

Open Protection of Freedom Act 2012.

Go to Section 119

...scratch yuor head.

I say No.

dvd

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 22 Aug 2012 11:00
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Bromptonaut

Section 119 deals with extent and application to the component parts of the UK. A hop, skip and a jump through the flaming hoops of devolution.

Not sure why it's a problem.

Chapter 4 of Part 5 for example only applies in England and Wales. Scotland can presumably legislate for itself to disregard convictions for bu**ery. NI can too though I doubt the Calvinists have any enthusiasm for doing so.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 13 Sep 2012 17:18
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Bromptonaut

Guidance now on DfT website.

tinyurl.com/9c2bxup

Not had time to absorb yet.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 28 Sep 2012 13:50
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Bromptonaut

The appeals system for private parking now has a website up and running at popla.org.uk/ . Seems to have close relationship with the London Parking and Traffic Appeals service. Michael Greenslade who also sits as an adjudicator with PATAS will lead the new service.

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news/current/pressdetail.htm?pk=1505

Edited by Bromptonaut on 28/09/2012 at 13:53

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 28 Sep 2012 21:55
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - daveyjp
popla is a nice try, but the issue over the consequences of ignoring the invoices isn't really addressed is it?

And no surprise as once you get into this it brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 29 Sep 2012 11:52
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Bromptonaut

Sorry, hit wrong button

Edited by Bromptonaut on 29/09/2012 at 11:53

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 29 Sep 2012 11:57
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Bromptonaut
popla is a nice try, but the issue over the consequences of ignoring the invoices isn't really addressed is it? And no surprise as once you get into this it brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.

Can you expand on that davey?

The consequence of ignoring the invoice is much more likely than before to be a County Court summons. The landholder now has a defined target, the keeper, and a clear amount to sue for, the contractual amount displayed on the land.

The aggrieved and ingeneous together with sundry hook wrigglers will doubtless seek loopholes and the next year or so will be interesting.

I'm stocking up on coke & popcorn to watch the show!!

Edited by Bromptonaut on 29/09/2012 at 11:58

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 10 Oct 2012 02:32
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - happy polo

Is there any

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 16 Oct 2012 16:48
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Armitage Shanks {p}

Even though the owner can be sent correspondence there are still plenty of hurdles for the nasties to fall at!

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=73765" target="_blank">forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=73765
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4225...5" target="_blank">forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4225615

"They took me to court for "£2,560", and yesterday, the judge quite correctly dismissed the case.
- No evidence of contract between Sainsburys and ECP
- No witness statement
- Nothing to show the claimant has the right to issue proceedings
- No proof of system of data collection, no evidence to show the cameras were working and that it's safe to rely on their evidence
- No proof of breach of contract
- No submission of of evidence of quantifiable losses, therefore their ludicrous "parking charge notices" are nothing more than unenforceable penalties "

history of dispute:
forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=67596&h...=" target="_blank">forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=67596&hl=
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3803...5" target="_blank">forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3803225

Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 16/10/2012 at 16:49

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 29 Oct 2012 09:39
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - daveweim

Hi All,

I understand that with the new law that came into force earlier this month that one cannot now ignore a PCN issued from a privately run car park. I've fallen foul of such a notice last weekend and now have to stump up £85, reduced to £50 for good behaviour. We can park at the said car park for 2 hours and we returned from shopping in town a few mins within this limit. It then however took us 15 mins to leave the car park due to the backlog of vehicles leaving hence putting us ten mins over the two hours for which we received the PCN. Obviously the camera which photographs cars on entry and exit of the car park won't show this back log of cars. Is this something I can appeal against or shall I cough up and pay?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 29 Oct 2012 10:18
D Day for private parking 1.10.2012 - Bromptonaut

Hi All,

I understand that with the new law that came into force earlier this month that one cannot now ignore a PCN issued from a privately run car park. I've fallen foul of such a notice last weekend and now have to stump up £85, reduced to £50 for good behaviour. We can park at the said car park for 2 hours and we returned from shopping in town a few mins within this limit. It then however took us 15 mins to leave the car park due to the backlog of vehicles leaving hence putting us ten mins over the two hours for which we received the PCN. Obviously the camera which photographs cars on entry and exit of the car park won't show this back log of cars. Is this something I can appeal against or shall I cough up and pay?

I'd have said that was worth appealing. The appelas ervice website is here http://www.popla.org.uk/

You're a guinea pig; keep us posted!!!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link