Has the original proposal for the Protection of Freedoms Bill altered?
Regarding Clause 56 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill which allows Parking Enforcement outfits to pursue Registered Keepers of cars for parking penalties, a change to the bill will allow the rental and leasing sectors to provide details of the driver and so effectively be protected from prosecution as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. That is a change to the original proposal.
The rental/leasing companies can clearly demonstrate they were not driving the vehicle at the time. This could be read as a precedent in that if any Registered Keeper, irrespective of whether they are a private individual or not, can clearly demonstrate they were not driving or in control of the vehicle, then why shouldn't they also be afforded the same protection? As you have pointed out, the whole argument centres round the law of Contract. If the BVRLA can campaign successfully on behalf of its members, then shouldn't those who represent the ordinary private motorist (AA/RAC supposedly) also mount a similarly vigorous defence?
In reality, our MPs should be doing this, but clearly their main focus lies elsewhere. I think it is more important to fight the Registered Keeper position first and foremost, as most people can easily deal with PPCs if they are made aware of how to do that through columns such as yours has done. Whether the courts will allow the same defence to the Registered Keeper as they have in the past with the driver of the vehicle remains to be seen. I am sure the PPC's will want to test that out, although in truth I don't think they will have any more success than they have done previously. It is the issue of civil liberties and the breach of it sanctioned by our Government that worries me and also probably yourself.
The rental/leasing companies can clearly demonstrate they were not driving the vehicle at the time. This could be read as a precedent in that if any Registered Keeper, irrespective of whether they are a private individual or not, can clearly demonstrate they were not driving or in control of the vehicle, then why shouldn't they also be afforded the same protection? As you have pointed out, the whole argument centres round the law of Contract. If the BVRLA can campaign successfully on behalf of its members, then shouldn't those who represent the ordinary private motorist (AA/RAC supposedly) also mount a similarly vigorous defence?
In reality, our MPs should be doing this, but clearly their main focus lies elsewhere. I think it is more important to fight the Registered Keeper position first and foremost, as most people can easily deal with PPCs if they are made aware of how to do that through columns such as yours has done. Whether the courts will allow the same defence to the Registered Keeper as they have in the past with the driver of the vehicle remains to be seen. I am sure the PPC's will want to test that out, although in truth I don't think they will have any more success than they have done previously. It is the issue of civil liberties and the breach of it sanctioned by our Government that worries me and also probably yourself.
Asked on 1 July 2012 by RC, via email
Answered by
Honest John
Many thanks. Now I understand what you are getting at. Thank you for your patience in clarifying this.
Similar questions
I have for many months read your replies regarding experiences with members of the British Parking Association (BPA), and how they have used the DVLA to make money from unsuspecting motorists. I have recently...
Having been clamped on private land (where I was working, I parked in the wrong bay at a block of flats last week), I now carry a powerful angle grinder in my van. The nice Russian lad who came to remove...
You recently mentioned in your column that the British Parking Association is lobbying Parliament to make vehicle keepers liable for parking penalties. Is anybody lobbying to maintain the status quo?
.jpg)
