|
I wonder whether those concerned about this bill have correctly interpreted.
I have just been reading the relevant clauses of the current version of the bill(see pages 113 onwards at http://tinyurl.com/68mjrok), and it appears to me that:
a) the bill does indeed provide a power for parking companies to require disclosure of the identity of the driver of a behicle which they believe has parked wrongly on their land
b) the bill probably does not give parking conmpanies a carte-blanche right to enforce their charges. It does give them a right to take proceedings against the registered keeper of a vehicle if the driver is not known, unless the vehicle is stolen.
See paragraphs 4 and 5 of schedule 4 of the bill, esp paragraph 5, which sets out the conditions:
5
(1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the terms of the relevant contract which require the unpaid parking charges to be paid; but
(b) is unable to enforce those terms against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
The whole thing is about enforcing a contract. I can find nothing in the bill which overturns the general principles relating to unfair contracts, which has so far been the main stumbling block for the parking companies: the courts usually find their contracts to be unfair. If you disagree, please point out where in the bill there is anything which alters the requirement for consumer contracts to be fair?
The explanatory notes (see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/146/en/11146en.htm) appear to support my reading. They say:
- 204. Paragraph 1 introduces the scheme as provided for in Schedule 4. The scheme provides that, subject to certain conditions being met, the keeper of a vehicle may be made liable for an unpaid parking charge that has been incurred by the driver of the vehicle having entered into a contract with a landowner and/or his or her agent in relation to parking the vehicle on the landowner’s land. The scheme is based on the legal analysis that a driver of a vehicle by parking on private land impliedly accepts the landowner’s offer to park (or that of a parking company acting as the landowner’s agent), or prohibition on parking and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions (including any parking charges and the associated enforcement mechanism for those charges) advertised on a notice board at the entrance to and within the land. If the terms and conditions are not adhered to by the driver then the vehicle can be "ticketed" for charges due under the terms of the contract.
and
- 208. Paragraph 5 sets out the first condition which is that the creditor must have the right to enforce a parking contract against the driver of a vehicle but be unable to do so because the creditor does not know the name and current address of the driver
Does this really overturn the requirement that contract must be fair and reasonable? If so, the parking companies could impose a charge of £1million per minute, and bankrupt anyone who parks there. I think it's very unlikely that the law would be proposing that ... and the explanatory notes are carefully worded. They say that "the scheme is based on the legal analysis that a driver of a vehicle by parking on private land impliedly accepts the landowner’s offer to park"; they do NOT confer a judgement on the validity of that legal analysis.
The requirement to disclose the name of the driver is definitely in the bill, and it is something to which many drivers have objected wrt speeding tickets. Howver, I don't share that objection: it seems to me to be reasonable that the keeper of a vehicle should be responsible for knowing who used it when, and to take the penalty if they cannot or will disclose who was using it (except if the car is stolen, an exception included in the bill).
So my reading of this bill is that it gives parking companies the power to find out who to sue, but no new powers in relation to the validity of their contracts.
I am not a lawyer, but I want to see a lawyer's analysis before believing what is claimed on this blog.
|
|
Dont waste your money on lawyers just do the sensible thing and petition against it. If they dont get anymore power they cant do anything more. Very simple equation. Why waste time with lawyers when it boils down to really being that simple? The less you allow the vultures to do the better it is for all of us. Simple. I am a big fan of simplicity.
it seems to me to be reasonable that the keeper of a vehicle should be responsible for knowing who used it when, and to take the penalty if they cannot or will disclose who was using it
What about rentals, courtesy cars or company cars? The three groups of car most likely to get parking tickets because the drivers know it'll never come back to them.
If so, the parking companies could impose a charge of £1million per minute, and bankrupt anyone who parks there. I think it's very unlikely that the law would be proposing that ...
We were told it was very unlikely that the Eurozone would collapse when first formed all those years ago.
My objection is that i dont believe in principle that any private parking firm should be allowed to bill me for using land which isnt even theirs. If they built the car park then fair enough but if not, jog on. They should be banned from operating at hospitals, i pay plenty of tax to keep our hospitals running if they waste it all and need to get vultures into the car park then thats their problem it shouldnt be mine.
Edited by jamie745 on 21/08/2011 at 02:59
|
Dont waste your money on lawyers just do the sensible thing and petition against it. If they dont get anymore power they cant do anything more. Very simple equation. Why waste time with lawyers when it boils down to really being that simple? The less you allow the vultures to do the better it is for all of us. Simple. I am a big fan of simplicity.
So you want people to petition against it without even bothring to check whether it actually means what you think it means. I am not a fan of wasting people's time.
it seems to me to be reasonable that the keeper of a vehicle should be responsible for knowing who used it when, and to take the penalty if they cannot or will disclose who was using it
What about rentals, courtesy cars or company cars? The three groups of car most likely to get parking tickets because the drivers know it'll never come back to them.
Simple. Either the owner of the car makes reasonable efforts to keep track of who is using it, or they pay up. Their choice.
My objection is that i dont believe in principle that any private parking firm should be allowed to bill me for using land which isnt even theirs. If they built the car park then fair enough but if not, jog on.
Don't be silly: a parking firm cannot simply select a piece of land at random and start charging for it. They can charge only if the owner asks them to provide that service.
Do you think that you should be able to park for free on somebody else's land? And if not, why shouldn't the owner have some comeback against you?
|
Do you think that you should be able to park for free on somebody else's land? And if not, why shouldn't the owner have some comeback against you?
Because you still cant see the difference between what i call private land and what is actually a public place. You're probably missing the point on purpose as alot of people are very annoying that way. When people on here are referring to 'private land' you appear to think its referring to your driveway, or your alotment, or your garden or something. Thats not what its saying, what it means is you could 'overstay' in the Morrisons car park for 10 minutes too long and get stuck with an obligatory 'fine'. If this legislation was aimed at stopping people parking on my driveway (which has happened) then i'd be all for it, but its not. All its doing is loosening the regulations and increasing the powers for the parking company, NOT for the land owner. You say 'shouldnt the owner have some comeback against you' this legislation will not benefit the owner at all. It'll benefit the parking company who will raise more in charges and the land owner will receive nothing. So its nothing to do with 'land owner having comeback against you' what so ever.
You seem to think this legislation is going to mean if someone parks in your garden you will have the right to fine them and that its going to mean freedom for all land owners. Its nothing of the sort, all it is is legislation to allow parking vultures to fine you without reproach. You need to get out of the mentality of 'private land' because you appear to believe its referring to your garden, rather than retail premesis.
What this REALLY means is when you go to a Hospital, or Tesco or somewhere like that, if you stay too long, because you were visiting sick people or spending your money in the shop, a vulture like NCP gets to bill you because you stayed for ten minutes too long. Theres a difference between that (which is what the bill is aimed at) and what you mean by private land (which it isnt aimed at).
Don't be silly: a parking firm cannot simply select a piece of land at random and start charging for it. They can charge only if the owner asks them to provide that service
I never said they could but as you've brought it up in that case land owners should be banned from using these companies. If the parking company didnt build the car park then they cant operate in it, end of discussion. It'd be in the land owners interests if they run a shop or a pub or something, i'd never go back there again if i got a ticket from a disgusting vulture they employed. If i was in their establishment spending money and got penalised for spending too much of it or staying too long and i got a ticket i'd never set foot in there again. And i'd heavily urge anyone who gets one to do the same, force places to shut down and go out of business then people will rethink matters.
Its not me who needs to read what its about, its you who needs to realise this is not legislation aimed at letting you fine people for parking in your garden.
|
|
We use car parks attached to stores, or even Services as part of an undertaking which is often displayed. Usually worded as staying for "two hours" or alike. This is a mutual understanding, they will allow you to use their land for a finite time allowing you to use their facilities. If you overstay, you have breached the terms you tacitly accepted by parking in the first place. They then effectively charge you for the convenience of using their land. If you don't want to risk incurring the extra charge, don't overstay, how much simpler can it be?
|
|
Well i think thats a disgusting attitude, if they'd rather i left instead of spending money i
|
|
Well i think thats a disgusting attitude, if they'd rather i left instead of spending money in their store then they deserve to go out of business and you can see why the nation is in economic downturn with horrific attitudes and approaches like that. They have no excuses for going out of business if thats how they view the World. Quite disgraceful really.
'Welcome! Come spend money in our stores! But not too much or for too long or we'll fine you'
Fines for going shopping. What next?
Edited by jamie745 on 22/08/2011 at 21:06
|
|
The reason for a 2-hour limit is very simple, as Davmal says. Without that restriction all-day parkers would take up the spaces to save paying for a public car park.
If you really need to be more than two hours in the same shop (I can think of few things worse) then come out, drive in again and park in another part of the car park.
|
|
I have no desire to spend more than two hours in a shop in any instance, thats not the point. I will oppose this bill on principle that if i did decide to spend 2 hours 10 minutes in there no private company has any right to my personal details or to send me a 'fine' (a fine should be imposed for committing a crime, not for parking a car).
If you really need to be more than two hours in the same shop (I can think of few things worse) then come out, drive in again and park in another part of the car park.
You know some people have done that before but parking companies cameras are so useless it counts it all as one visit and you get a 'fine' anyway. I read a story in the local paper about a chap who parked his van up in a car park, 1 hour stay or whatever, left after 45 minutes, came back 3 hours later for something else and parked up for 15 minutes, then got a bill in the post for supposedly staying for 5 hours. If this is the level of expertise we're dealing with the last thing we can risk is any extra rights for such idiotic companies.
|
I will oppose this bill on principle that if i did decide to spend 2 hours 10 minutes in there no private company has any right to my personal details or to send me a 'fine' (a fine should be imposed for committing a crime, not for parking a car).
What if you spend 200 hours? Should you have to pay then? 2000 hours?
The companies can already get details of the car's owner from the DVLA, and the bill doesn't change that. What this bill allows the companies to do is to insist that if you object to their charge, then either you identify somebodyt else as a driver, or you get the ticket yourself . It's then up to you whether you pay it or contest it.
You say that there shoukd be no parking fnes at all. Does that also apply to those who vlock town centres by parking on double yellow lines?
|
What if you spend 200 hours? Should you have to pay then? 2000 hours?
Maybe a system of guidance of not bothering with it until its 1 hour overdue, but to trust a parking firm to stick to such a guidance is pointless. They'll be in there at 2hrs and 1 min even if they see you on your way back to it with keys in hand, just to make their money.
The companies can already get details of the car's owner from the DVLA, and the bill doesn't change that.
Should be banned. None of their business who owns the car.
What this bill allows the companies to do is to insist that if you object to their charge, then either you identify somebodyt else as a driver, or you get the ticket yourself . It's then up to you whether you pay it or contest it.
What if i disagree with the charge full stop? What gives them the right to 'demand' that the fee gets paid by somebody? Who made them God and entitled to the publics money? I-Want-Never-Got as my mother always says.
If i refuse to pay it then what? Surely only a court can force me to pay anything.
You say that there shoukd be no parking fnes at all. Does that also apply to those who vlock town centres by parking on double yellow lines?
90% of double yellows are akin to a Mafia Protection Racket anyway just to extract money from motorists by giving them nowhere to park. I park on double yellows ive never blocked up a town, i leave the car mostly on the pavement where possible actually like i did on Saturday, seeing as the pavement was wider than the road i feel i caused less annoyance that way. But blocking the public highway is different to staying too long in a McDonalds car park. Its the council who deal with the proper road and i am obligated to answer to them. Its different to overstaying 10 minutes at McDonalds with plenty of other spaces still available, no babies murdered or anything but this bill gives them the right to treat you like a criminal.
|
|
Its not me who needs to read what its about, its you who needs to realise this is not legislation aimed at letting you fine people for parking in your garden.
Jamie, you appear to have decided that you know what the legislation says without actually analysing the text of the bill or citing a lawyer's analysis of it.
You and one other poster in this thread repeatedly insist that this measure will allow companies to impose some sort of "fine" ... but so far as I can see, all it does is to allow landowners or their agents to trace the driver of a vehicle. I see nothing in this legislation which would allow the imposition of the sort of penalties which the parking companies have tried to apply, but which the courts have thrown out.
You evidently disagree with my reading of the bill, so please point out which part of the bill supports your interpretation.
You clearly dislike landowners employing vulture companies, but as far as I can see that's a red herring. Nearly 2 years ago I received a pay-us-£90-for-a-10-minute-overstay demand I recieved after a middle-of-the-night-nap in a near-empty motorway service station, and it makes no difference to me that it came from an agent of the landowner rather than the landowner themselves. My complaint is about the unfair terms, rather than who posted the threat.
The powers in this bill may be used in many different situations, including retail car parks and land onto which the public is not invited. You are focused on the rapacious people who penalise overstayers in retailers' car parks, but you are determined to ignore the fate of people like the woman who posted earlier in this thread about how the parking at her business premises was abused, and she needed some redress. You seem fixated on the idea that only the parking companies make any money out of these charges ... but what eveidence do you have of how their contracts are worded? If the landowner employs another company to to enforce their parking rules, why is that more offensive than them employing a private security company to stop thefts?
As to Tescos and hospital parks and so on, are you really saying that they should all provide unlimited free parking to everyone? Really?
If you don't want public services and retailers to provide unlimited free parking, then there has to be some mechanism for charging those who overstay. This bill may not be the best way of doing that, but you seem to want no enforcement at all.
|
Nearly 2 years ago I received a pay-us-£90-for-a-10-minute-overstay demand I recieved after a middle-of-the-night-nap in a near-empty motorway service station,
I think this is the source of the polarisation of the debate. Few people can reasonably argue with the principle of fiscal redress for inconsiderate/illegal parking. But disproportionate fines like this are not on. I think the opposition to the bill arises from the fear that parking companies will be given a carte blanche. I'd rather see regulated penalty notices-say £50 max for non hazardous parking, £100 in London.
That's a reasonable deterrant, yet still proportionate.
Edited by unthrottled on 23/08/2011 at 00:21
|
|
|
Jamie, you appear to have decided that you know what the legislation says without actually analysing the text of the bill or citing a lawyer's analysis of it.
I dont need a lawyer to tell me giving vultures more rights is a bad idea. There are some things i can work out all by myself.
all it does is to allow landowners or their agents to trace the driver of a vehicle.
What right does any private land owner or any private company have to my private details? With anything else you have to sign a form and tick a box to confirm they may access details etc does the Data Protection Act not come into this? I dont want any tom dick harry farmer having access to where i live just because i parked on his gravel for three minutes. Communism by the back door. Only the Police should have access to details like that and i dont trust them with it either.
but you are determined to ignore the fate of people like the woman who posted earlier in this thread about how the parking at her business premises was abused,
Parking in someones loading bay in a back street is different for staying 10 minutes too long at B&Q. I couldnt care less what she thinks to be quite honest, there will always be the odd moaning minnie who will benefit from stupid law changes. I still dont see how her parking company getting £95 makes the car vanish out of her space, but there you go. The problem is when you make pathetic pedestrianised zones people are forced to park in inadequate roads, she should blame the council for her problems.
If the landowner employs another company to to enforce their parking rules, why is that more offensive than them employing a private security company to stop thefts?
Private security are there as a visual deterrent, it is not the security guards job to prevent a theft, they dont get paid enough for that. If someone is ballsy enough to break in with a gun the security guard says 'take everything' and phones the police when they're gone. The idea is just having people on site lessens the risk of someone breaking in and business insurance is generally alot cheaper if you have security but security guards dont *do* anything. They're not paid enough for that. Most importantly they get the same wage whether theres a theft/break in or not, security have no financial interest in screwing the public over. Security are paid a flat rate by business owners because its generally less than insurance would be without the security, thats all it is. We have a security firm where i work they're only a visual deterrent, they cant actually do anything to you. So thats why thats less offensive than what youve suggested. Apples and oranges.
And our security do monitor parking, if someone parks on site who shouldnt be there (if they dont have an appointment they can clear off) they do go out and politely ask them to leave.
As to Tescos and hospital parks and so on, are you really saying that they should all provide unlimited free parking to everyone? Really?
If you're shopping in Tesco's or attending the Hospital then yes it should be free. Hospitals especially. Over £120billion thrown at the NHS this year and they cant afford to run their own car parks? Nonsense. So no, not free parking 'to everyone' but free parking to those using the facilities. If you're there to go to Tesco then you'll leave when you're done, you wont stay in there for longer than required will you? It seems poor souls who overstay for 10 mins are treated the same as people who dump their car in there and go elsewhere for 15 hours.
If you don't want public services and retailers to provide unlimited free parking, then there has to be some mechanism for charging those who overstay. This bill may not be the best way of doing that, but you seem to want no enforcement at all.
Fines should be given for crimes, not for parking a car. End of discussion. Enforcement should be on a non for profit basis especially in Hospitals where i find the likes of NCP's enforcement quite distasteful to be honest. I dont mind it staying as it is now but clamping should be banned. I know if i get a 'fine' from some pithy private firm i can ignore it, like i have done, costs them more to take me to court than the 'fine' is worth so they dont bother chasing.
|
If hospitals, for example, employed their own parking wardens, they would be NHS employees and would burden the trust with the associated costs ie NI, pension rights, sick pay. This cost would then be borne by all taxpayers, to enforce regularity amongst the few inconsiderate motorists who believe that all land should be available to them to park.
Can't pay the fine, don't do the crime....
|
|
|
Jamie, you appear to have decided that you know what the legislation says without actually analysing the text of the bill or citing a lawyer's analysis of it.
I dont need a lawyer to tell me giving vultures more rights is a bad idea. There are some things i can work out all by myself.
You seem to have to have worked out all by yourself that the bill does all sorts of things which are not written in it. That's up to you.
You may not like the idea of giving the vultures more powers ... but your blanket opposition to any enforcement of parking restrictions is a great gift to the parking companies. They can note the huge cost of creating parking spaces in towns and cities, and point to people like you, who want to be able to park for free wherever they like, and say "look! we need tough laws to deal with selfish freeloaders like that".
You give them just the cover they need to divert the discussion away from the unfair scale of charges applied, and the lack of reasonableness in handling small overstays.
There are plenty of us who wouldn't mind paying a small fee for short overstays. That used to be the case in a city centre car park in Bradford: free for the first 30 minutes, but pay thereafter. It had a barrier at the gate, and if you left soon enough you didn't pay anything, if you left later you paid the appropriate charge of 50p or so.
Similarly, I don't mind paying a bit if I overstay in a hospital supermarket carpark or a mway service station. If there is a 2 hour limit, then a sliding scale of charges would be fine: say £2 for up to 3 hours, £5 for up to 4 hours, £10 for up to 6 hours, and rising thereafter. Something similar to the scale of charges applied at municipal or NCP car parks would be fair, but set a little higher to discourage people from using these parks for purposes unrelated to their owners' business, and allowing for the costs of collection if people don't pay on the spot.
There is plenty of scope for a really constructive debate about how to handle parking, balancing the fact that parking is expensive to provide and cannot be unlimited with the goal of not being punitive to those who make resaonable mistakes. By drawing the debate onto that territory, we could focus on the sheer bullying greed of the prvate operators, and I think there is a really good chance that reasonable views would prevail, and that we could use this bill to put a stop to the vultures.
However, anyone from the parking companies who reads this thread can easily put together a great briefing pack using what you have written, claiming that opposition is driven by selfish extremists who want others to give them unlimited free parking in crowded cities, without even any recourse for the operators for any abuse of the facilities. They will be delighted that you are providing them with the ammunition they need. If they were paying you as an agent provocateur, they would reckon they had got their money's worth.
|
|
I knew the whole 'its your fault' argument would get wheeled out eventually, it happens frequently and i usually just ignore it but because you took the time to write so much i will respond.
You seem to have to have worked out all by yourself that the bill does all sorts of things which are not written in it. That's up to you.
Its not written in it YET. If this gets through it'll set a precident for lots of other little add ons to get through also, by crushing them at source and keeping the floodgates firmly shut we can protect the public. Let one slip through then next year a thousand get through etc
point to people like you, who want to be able to park for free wherever they like, and say "look! we need tough laws to deal with selfish freeloaders like that".
A) I didnt say that and B) The point is they wouldnt use these 'tough laws' just to deal with the minority of 'selfish freeloaders' they'd use them against anyone and everyone they possibly could in the aim of extracting more money. If you think they'd only use them against the one knob who parks across three spaces and leaves it there for 6 days but they wouldnt apply it against a little old dear who overstayed by 3 minutes you're extremely niave. Its called collateral damage, letting the minority off the hook to protect the majority has to be the mentality when dealing with bills like this.
You give them just the cover they need to divert the discussion away from the unfair scale of charges applied, and the lack of reasonableness in handling small overstays.
The unfair scale of charges and lack of reasonableness that they created in the first place despite no bill required to let them do so. If they can create this without Governments help imagine what they can do with Governments help?! I didnt create the unfair charge scale which results in mass parking company hate, they did. So dont blame me.
There are plenty of us who wouldn't mind paying a small fee for short overstays.
I do. And i object even more so to a £95 'fine' (which isnt really a fine) because i dared to use their car park for 5 minutes too long.
Similarly, I don't mind paying a bit if I overstay in a hospital supermarket carpark or a mway service station.
People like you, all too willing to handover their money are the real problem then, not me.
There is plenty of scope for a really constructive debate about how to handle parking, balancing the fact that parking is expensive to provide and cannot be unlimited with the goal of not being punitive to those who make resaonable mistakes.
Agreed. The problem is this bill is aimed purely at making you guilty until proven innocent and covering none of the criteria or aims you set out there.
By drawing the debate onto that territory, we could focus on the sheer bullying greed of the prvate operators,
The bullying greed they invented all by themselves with no help whatsoever, and you still dont see why i oppose any legislation to help these vultures?
there is a really good chance that reasonable views would prevail
Nonsense. Reasonableness never prevails these days. In general. You have to be one extreme or the other. Completely 100% left or right, there is no middle ground anymore. You have to be extremist and loud to get your point across (Greenie hippies for example, they'd never get on the telly if they had reasonable views). Parking companies arent reasonable, fight fire with fire my friend.
However, anyone from the parking companies who reads this thread can easily put together a great briefing pack using what you have written, claiming that opposition is driven by selfish extremists who want others to give them unlimited free parking in crowded cities
Wouldnt surprise me at all. Very common trick used by left-wing communistical propagandists, to take one persons views, portray them as widespread to create an entire campaign of defamation against the entire public.
|
"Its not written in it YET. If this gets through it'll set a precident for lots of other little add ons to get through also, by crushing them at source and keeping the floodgates firmly shut we can protect the public. Let one slip through then next year a thousand get through etc"
You've decided what this bill will do, even though it's not written yet? What will it set a precident (sic) for? What will be the thousands that get through? How many examples can you actually give of what will get through?
Is there any difference between a little old dear overstaying by three minutes, and a musclebound, tattooed thug. Would you suggest an exclusion for elderly, female dwarves or are you trying to be emotive? A ford pick-up or a Yaris, they both take up a parking space.
"I do. And i object even more so to a £95 'fine' (which isnt really a fine) because i dared to use their car park for 5 minutes too long."
Back to the free parking you want, at anyone else's expense.
"People like you, all too willing to handover their money are the real problem then, not me"
So, you don't like parting with your money. I think we've gathered that.
"Wouldnt surprise me at all. Very common trick used by left-wing communistical propagandists, to take one persons views, portray them as widespread to create an entire campaign of defamation against the entire public."
More deafening white noise. Delete "left-wing communistical propogandists" and insert any other: pressure group, lobby group, political party, religious cult, infact inserting "the ABD" will give you the idea.
|
|
"Some people have blocks for brains and refuse to listen" I rest my case.
(Sorry, Davmal - I had to hide the post that this is a quote from, as it contained insults and swearing.)
Edited by Avant on 24/08/2011 at 00:01
|
|
You seem to have to have worked out all by yourself that the bill does all sorts of things which are not written in it. That's up to you.
Its not written in it YET.
Jami, you agree that you are opposing the bill because of things it doesn't do, because you fear that nasty things might be done afterwards in another bill.
Every single piece of legislation can be opposed on that basis, so that argument gets nowhere in any parliament. All it does is to allow opponents of the bill to be cast as unresaonable extremists, and marginalised. If you want the bill to pass, you are on exactly the right track.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello All, I think NowWheels makes a valid point about the difference between unfair contracts and private parking companies, but how do we seperate the two? It seems all the PPC's do is try to enforce blatantly unfair charges for relatively minor breaches of contract. I fully realise there are many cases, such a jenni-pitt which need a different solution, to PREVENT the thoughtless from parking irresponsibly. My wife works in a shop with similar arrangements to jenni. No amount of ticket issuing stopped the irresponsible parking problem, because it is a different motorist each time. So one Sunday they installed 3 simple fold/drop down barriers at no great cost, hey presto problem solved. Guaranteed parking ever since. jenni actually pays for the use of her spaces and should enjoy that right, but sometimes a simple solution is the best. Supermarkets etc etc are a different story, told many times previously.
Regarding the relevant section of the Bill. The facility to access registered keeper details already exisits by individual application and an admin fee, as I understand it this process will be streamlined to allow quicker access to data. The power to make the keeper liable and the power to 'enforce' is also included. Why give the power to enforce if no such mechanism exists to do this? This leads me to believe that this part of the bill will be possibly brought under the relevant section of The Road Traffic Act that covers disclosure and enforcement. This means a criminal court and a possible criminal record for many unfortunate keepers, regardless of guilt or innocence. If enforcement is not be dealt with this way then surely it will mean an amendment to civil contract law( a nightmare given the range that covers) or a change to enforcing the laws of tresspass. I firmly believe this would be the thin end of a very large wedge to start charging citizens for all sorts of transgressions in many areas of daily life.
This subject has provoked some lively debate and unearthed some interesting information and opinions. Parking is quite emotive but so is the behaviour of some private companies involved. Personally I would charge everyone for parking everywhere and the cost of the parking would be recovered when you bought something at the business concerned. That would circumvent most of this issue. It would also put the private parking companies out of business, or at least business as they now operate it. Parking in many repects is the side issue. If anyone wants to start the process of handing arbitration of facts to a private company, whose incentive is to collect money from you, then do nothing. Alternatively, if you have an interest in actually protecting the freedoms you currently enjoy and rely upon, then think carefully about opposing this section of the Bill. Thanks to all for the input so far, it is big subject to encapsulate in these posts, but I think eventually we can reach a concencus without the need for freedom eroding legislation. Best to all. Concrete
|
My wife works in a shop with similar arrangements to jenni. No amount of ticket issuing stopped the irresponsible parking problem, because it is a different motorist each time.
See thats the key point. Ive asked Jenni twice how giving someone a 'fine' clears her parking space. Surely you'd have to fine every motorist in Britain to guarantee nobody would park in the space. Yes you charge one £95 one day but it'll be someone else the next day. Barriers is always the best solution to issues like that. If she uses the parking company and still finds people parked there in the first place then the system obviously isnt working.
Where i work there should be nobody parked there after 9pm barring security so security just put cones over the entrances, nobody parks there anymore. Very simple. Picked up some second hand orange cones on ebay and job sorted.
I'd advise Jenni to get some yellow cones with no stopping markings on them, put them across her spaces, nobody will park in them. And best of all, no parking company will be raking in £95 despite having not helped Jenni in the slightest. In Jenni's case its nothing to do with enforcement of parking times or overstays, or staying too long etc. Her spaces dont have a 30 min time limit etc the fact is there should be NO PARKING there full stop. Entirely different scenario. Surely something to stop people parking there is more productive than 'fining' people who do?
Edited by jamie745 on 23/08/2011 at 18:06
|
|
The fact is what Jenni maybe doesnt realise is her parking company want people to park in her spaces or they dont make any money. They have no interests in preventing people using her spaces and reducing her stress or making her life more convenient. In Jenni's case we're not talking about overstays in Morrisons car park this is an area where people shouldnt park, full stop. What Jenni needs is measures to prevent her spaces being used, which is not in the interests of the parking company. This legislation will not prevent people using her spaces, all it'll do is make them instantly liable to pay the 'fine'. Surely the ideal solution for Jenni is to come back to her spaces and find them empty? That wont happen using the fine-them route until you've fined EVERYBODY for doing it once.
Edited by jamie745 on 23/08/2011 at 18:28
|
|
The law on trespass is clear and well established - but any damages are limited to the costs or losses incurred by the property owner - why should parking without permission be any different to any other trespass?
|
|
In Jenni's case which are private spaces for her use only she should have barriers or cones, barriers are best and just a one off expense to save alot of future trouble. If someone breaks through them and parks there anyway then thats tresspass and criminal damage.
I still think if she even used cones nobody would park there which has to be a better solution than getting a parking company to 'fine' people for using her space. Whether they're fined or not they're still using her space which cant be helpful to her.
|
|
|
|
Quite.
|
|
Well hopefully Jenni comes back and reads this and takes note of everyones helpful suggestions on how to stop people parking in her space in the first place, as the parking company has no interest in preventing this inconvenience because they wouldnt make any money if they did. I honestly think even a block of wood sat horizontally on two bins would stop people parking there in the first place, but a fixed barrier would be best, or some bollards as a cheap alternative. Since we've used that method where i work we've had no unauthorised parking in 7 months, people dont bother getting out to move the cones. Simple but effective.
Edit: I dont know if Jenni pays this company but whether she does or not i have a response for both scenarios.
If she does pay them, then stop giving it to them and spend it on a barrier instead. If she doesnt pay them, that backs up my assertion that they want people to park in her spaces or else they'd make no money.
Edited by jamie745 on 24/08/2011 at 00:22
|
|
|
|
The law on trespass is clear and well established - but any damages are limited to the costs or losses incurred by the property owner - why should parking without permission be any different to any other trespass?
Hello RT, I think the trespass law doesn't usually apply when parking on private land i.e. supermarkets etc. Where there is a notional invitation to park for a specified time, and having parked you have entered into an implied contract to adhere to the parking conditions of the contract, that does not constitute trespass. The parking charge or invoice from PPC's is for breaching the contract, usually by overstaying. However, like trespass this is covered by civil law, which weighs the evidence on a balance of probabilities and award damages comensurate with the breach. That is why PPC's don't go to court. The court would award them damages for being deprived of a parking space for 15 minutes, hence £1 or so, certainly not the £60 plus they demand with a parking charge notice. This defence will be removed from all motorists if the new 'Protection of Freedoms Bill' goes through parliament as is presently stands. See www.parkinginjustice.wordpress.com and read about it and follow the link to the E-Petition to oppose the relevant section of this bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concrete, thank you for a thoughtful and measured response.
I think NowWheels makes a valid point about the difference between unfair contracts and private parking companies, but how do we seperate the two?
By avoiding get sidetracked into the fact that there are private parking companies involved. The core issue here is the unfair "contracts" and the power or otherwise to enforce them, not who does that.
It seems all the PPC's do is try to enforce blatantly unfair charges for relatively minor breaches of contract.
That seems to be the case. But the same sort of nastiness could be done by the landowners themselves, so the target needs to be the unfair charges, not the companies. Bullying business practices remain bullying, no matter who does them.
Regarding the relevant section of the Bill. The facility to access registered keeper details already exisits by individual application and an admin fee, as I understand it this process will be streamlined to allow quicker access to data. The power to make the keeper liable and the power to 'enforce' is also included. Why give the power to enforce if no such mechanism exists to do this?
As above, I do not see evidence in the bill of a power to enforce. All I see is a power to treat the keeper as the driver, so that the parking operator can know who they are dealing with ... but I do not see a new power to enforce. This is a critical distinction.
Currently, a car park operator pursuing charges faces two obstacles:
- They cannot prove who was driving the car, so unless the keeper is foolish enough to reveal that fact, they don't know who to pursue for charges
- The court has to consider the fairness or otherwise of the parking contract, and the courts have not been inclined to accept that £95 for a short overtsay is in any way reasonable
I think we agree that the bill addresses point 1. However, I'm still not persuaded that the bill changes the situation with regard to point 2, and point 2 is the crucial frreedom-eroding issue.
So far as I am concerned, it is quite reasonable to provide a mechanism to resolve point 1, so I support that part of the bill.
Howver, your concern is that you belive the bill provides some exemption to the general principle that a consumer contract should be fair. If you are correct in that belief, then I agree that the bill is nasty and dangerous ... but the crucial point is that AFAIK neither of us is a lawyer. We really need a lawyer's interpretation.
I think it's a pity that this measure has been introduced without a wider public debate on the whole issue of providing parking and charging for it, because currently it's one big mess. Car ownership and usage continues to grow, but our towns and cities were not designed for this level of car use, and parking is a thorny issue everywhere. Many businesses (e.g. pubs) have a "patrions only" notice in their car parks, but lack the ability to enforce that, so have resorted to clamping, with great scope for abuse. This bill commendably outlaws that practice, so some alternative right of redress is needed to provide a deterrent. (That's a point which some contributors to this thread have tried to ignore; a stiff charge applied after the fact does not prevent abuse of parking, but it can deter it).
Personally, I think that the simplest solution is to use physical barriers with a clearly-signed set of charges, and pay on the way out. That allows businesses to offer whatever length of free period they want for their customers, while leaving no doubt about any charges due ... and it removes any need for imposing penalties after the fact.
|
|
|
|
|
