I received a reply from my MP regarding the Protection of Freedoms Bill.
In response to my letter to my MP, David Burrowes, I received this letter:
"I am writing on behalf of David Burrowes, who has asked me to thank you for your email of yesterday about proposals in the Protection of Freedoms Bill which would make the registered keeper of a vehicle liable to be pursued for unpaid parking fines. Please find David's response on this issue below.
"Dear HL. My colleagues and I are proposing to ban wheel clamping on private land. Private parking companies will therefore have to enforce parking on private land through ticketing. To allow them to do so effectively, we are considering broadening the ability of landowners who use parking control companies to pursue the keeper of the vehicle for unpaid fines. I understand your concern over this issue but please let me assure you that strict safeguards are in place to protect against any misuse of the scheme. Private parking companies who wish to receive information from the DVLA about the registered keeper of a vehicle must be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association and abide by its Code of Practice. The Code of Practice sets conditions on signing and maximum fine levels and is there to make sure that drivers are treated fairly when parking on private land and that a complaints procedure is in place if they feel they have been treated unjustly. If a company does not abide by the Code of Practice they risk losing their accreditation and will be unable to access information electronically from the DVLA.
"In addition, the Transport Minister Norman Baker is working with the British Parking Association to establish an independent process for challenging tickets issued for parking on private land. I welcome clarification that if the keeper of the vehicle was not the driver at the time in question, they may give the name and address of the individual who was driving so this person can be pursued for payment instead. We have promised to end the war on motorists that existed under the previous administration and I am confident that proper safeguards have been put in place to protect drivers' rights in the UK.
"Thank you once more for taking the time to contact me and please do not hesitate to do so again in the future if you have any further concerns.”
"I am writing on behalf of David Burrowes, who has asked me to thank you for your email of yesterday about proposals in the Protection of Freedoms Bill which would make the registered keeper of a vehicle liable to be pursued for unpaid parking fines. Please find David's response on this issue below.
"Dear HL. My colleagues and I are proposing to ban wheel clamping on private land. Private parking companies will therefore have to enforce parking on private land through ticketing. To allow them to do so effectively, we are considering broadening the ability of landowners who use parking control companies to pursue the keeper of the vehicle for unpaid fines. I understand your concern over this issue but please let me assure you that strict safeguards are in place to protect against any misuse of the scheme. Private parking companies who wish to receive information from the DVLA about the registered keeper of a vehicle must be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association and abide by its Code of Practice. The Code of Practice sets conditions on signing and maximum fine levels and is there to make sure that drivers are treated fairly when parking on private land and that a complaints procedure is in place if they feel they have been treated unjustly. If a company does not abide by the Code of Practice they risk losing their accreditation and will be unable to access information electronically from the DVLA.
"In addition, the Transport Minister Norman Baker is working with the British Parking Association to establish an independent process for challenging tickets issued for parking on private land. I welcome clarification that if the keeper of the vehicle was not the driver at the time in question, they may give the name and address of the individual who was driving so this person can be pursued for payment instead. We have promised to end the war on motorists that existed under the previous administration and I am confident that proper safeguards have been put in place to protect drivers' rights in the UK.
"Thank you once more for taking the time to contact me and please do not hesitate to do so again in the future if you have any further concerns.”
Asked on 23 August 2011 by David Burrowes MP Member of Parliament for Enfield Southgate Joseph Ammoun Caseworker for David Burrowes MP Member of Parliament for Enfield Southgate HL, London N14
Answered by
Honest John
This is actually a standard response cobbled together by the DfT and on the basis of the experiences of at least 300 readers I can tell you it is audaciously inaccurate. The BPA has an impressive Code of Practice, here: www.britishparking.co.uk/Approved-Operator-Scheme-...e and an existing Appeals Procedure here: www.britishparking.co.uk/Private-land
Yet, in the experience of my readers, its members still resort to intimidation and harassment, even employing debt collection agencies combined with bailiffs who send threats without first obtaining court orders. Quite often mistakes are made, vehicles are wrongly identified and wholly innocent vehicle keepers are viciously pursued. Not one reader has ever informed me of being made aware of any kind of appeals process.
It is wholly irresponsible of any MP to back this section of the Bill without a statutory independent appeals process put in place, and I have to wonder quite what interests Civil Servants and MPs have in creating this licence to exploit the public. What must happen is for the ‘safeguards’ in the pro forma letter be incorporated into Clause 56 of the Act itself.
If Clause 56 goes through unamended and if any reader is unjustly pursued for outrageous penalties on the basis of keeper information from the DVLA, this newspaper will demand that the organisation who does this is immediately prevented from obtaining further keepership details form the DVLA and that the BPA is made to answer for the misbehaviour of its member with an extremely stiff penalty.
Yet, in the experience of my readers, its members still resort to intimidation and harassment, even employing debt collection agencies combined with bailiffs who send threats without first obtaining court orders. Quite often mistakes are made, vehicles are wrongly identified and wholly innocent vehicle keepers are viciously pursued. Not one reader has ever informed me of being made aware of any kind of appeals process.
It is wholly irresponsible of any MP to back this section of the Bill without a statutory independent appeals process put in place, and I have to wonder quite what interests Civil Servants and MPs have in creating this licence to exploit the public. What must happen is for the ‘safeguards’ in the pro forma letter be incorporated into Clause 56 of the Act itself.
If Clause 56 goes through unamended and if any reader is unjustly pursued for outrageous penalties on the basis of keeper information from the DVLA, this newspaper will demand that the organisation who does this is immediately prevented from obtaining further keepership details form the DVLA and that the BPA is made to answer for the misbehaviour of its member with an extremely stiff penalty.
Similar questions
I have been following the debate on Clause 56 of the Protection of Freedoms bill through your column and have written to my MP (twice) to raise my objections. I finally received a reply from Norman Baker...
Instead of motorists rejoicing that a debate over road fuel prices was triggered by a petition signed by just over 100,000 people, we should be looking upon this as the greatest show of public apathy ever....
I thought that the attached correspondence from Norman Baker would add to the debate. I had raised the points discussed in your letters column directly with my MP and he has followed this through: it would...
Elsewhere on 
.jpg)
