The provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act covering parling on private land and keeper liability for charges come inot efffect on 01 October.
DfT have published relevant guidance tinyurl.com/9c2bxup
Not had time to read/absorb yet.
|
|
NB This only applies in England and Wales. Scotland (and presumably NI) have their own arrangements.
|
Under FAQ, this seems to be the nub of the new regulations.
"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver".
What about the situation where for example; parking is free for 90 minutes and then £50 penalty for any time over 90 minutes?
These regulations would seem to rule that type of penalty.
How will landowners prove loss? If the car park is never full, then there can't be a loss, can there?
|
I thought the main thing was that 'ordinary' companies (eg. shops) can't clamp you, although they have more powers to get you to pay up:
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes a number of changes to the law related to parking on private land. It bans vehicle immobilisation and/or removal without lawful authority, and provides private landholders with additional powers to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges providing certain conditions are met. This guidance summarises the main provisions in the Act concerning the recovery of unpaid parking charges.
Last edited by: Focus on Thu 13 Sep 12 at 17:22
|
>> What about the situation where for example; parking is free for 90 minutes and then
>> £50 penalty for any time over 90 minutes?
>> How will landowners prove loss? If the car park is never full, then there can't
>> be a loss, can there?
>> > These regulations would seem to rule that type of penalty.
Not really, they could say that the parking charges are, free for 90 minutes, and then £50 for the next 8 hours. If you stay for two hours there is a loss of revenue of 50 pounds.
|
>> Not really, they could say that the parking charges are, free for 90 minutes, and
>> then £50 for the next 8 hours. If you stay for two hours there is
>> a loss of revenue of 50 pounds.
>>
The regs say "and the intention should not be to penalise the driver".
I think that most reasonable appeal tribunals would say that a charge of £50 for an overstay of say, ten or fifteen minutes when a stay of ninety minutes is free, constitutes a penalty on the driver.
|
>> The regs say "and the intention should not be to penalise the driver".
>>
>> I think that most reasonable appeal tribunals would say that a charge of £50 for
>> an overstay of say, ten or fifteen minutes when a stay of ninety minutes is
>> free, constitutes a penalty on the driver.
No you miss the point. Its not a penalty, they are the published charges.
The parking charges are free for 90 minutes, and £50 per hour after. That is the tariff, not a penalty. Then you could be pursued for loss of earnings.
|
>> No you miss the point. Its not a penalty, they are the published charges.
>>
>> The parking charges are free for 90 minutes, and £50 per hour after. That is
>> the tariff, not a penalty. Then you could be pursued for loss of earnings.
>>
No, I haven't missed the point. I believe that any appeal tribunal would say that £50 is an artificial figure intended to penalise.
|
|
So how do parking authorities get away with it then?
|
>> So how do parking authorities get away with it then?
>>
Because they are allowed to levy fines by law.
|
>> So how do parking authorities get away with it then?
They operate under a different statutory regime, the Traffic Management Act 2004.
Local Authoritties are entitled to issue penalties and these are set under guidance from the Dept for Transport.
EDIT - John H beat me too it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 14 Sep 12 at 12:47
|
|
The law of contract doesn't concern itself with whether the deal you have entered is a good one. If you enter into a contract for parking your car and the tariff is clearly shown as £5 for the first hour and £50 per hour thereafter then that is what you must pay. Nothing in the proposal suggests otherwise.
|
>> The law of contract doesn't concern itself with whether the deal you have entered is
>> a good one. If you enter into a contract for parking your car and the
>> tariff is clearly shown as £5 for the first hour and £50 per hour thereafter
>> then that is what you must pay. Nothing in the proposal suggests otherwise.
>>
The guidance says (page 25):
"6.What protection does consumer protection legislation provide in
relation to parking on private land?
Consumer protection legislation provides protections to consumers in a number
of ways, including protections from misleading information and unfair contract
terms. For example, where signs for motorists in a car park are misleading, or
other misleading information is given (for example tickets which look like local
authority tickets), or necessary information is not provided, there may be a
breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
(CPRs). Local authority trading standards services (TSS) and the Office of Fair
Trading (OFT) can take enforcement action where they consider the regulations
have or may have been breached.
If any terms provided by the landholder as part of the parking contract are
deemed unfair by a court they cannot be relied upon against a consumer. TSS,
OFT and consumers themselves can challenge unfair terms through the courts
under the Unfair Terms in ConsumerContracts Regulations 1999. "
Last edited by: John H on Fri 14 Sep 12 at 12:57
|
Legally there is nothing "unfair" about the amount of the consideration in a contract. If I sell you a car for twice what it is worth and you accept that it is not unfair as far as the law is concerned.
Similarly if you agree to pay £50 per hour to park a car that is not unfair as long as the the contract is entered into openly and without deception on the part of the operator.
|
>> No, I haven't missed the point. I believe that any appeal tribunal would say that
>> £50 is an artificial figure intended to penalise.
I think £50 is probably about right for overstayers or trespassing parkers and might reasonably represent the cost of pursuing a claim up to County Court summons. A 50% discount, applied for quick settlement, would also be reasonable.
Will be very interested to see how the appeal tribunal is working in say 6 months or a years time. I suspect however there will be much confusion and no little buck passing over appeals iro car parks not under the BPA umbrella.
It's also true that some of the companies responsible for the more egregiuos examples of sharp practice under the current set up are BPA members. Will BPA sucessfully bring them to heel or will new jiggery pokery be brought on?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 14 Sep 12 at 12:48
|
>> Will be very interested to see how the appeal tribunal is working in say 6
>> months or a years time. I suspect however there will be much confusion and no
>> little buck passing over appeals iro car parks not under the BPA umbrella.
>>
The usual forums devoted to look after drivers/consumers interests in matters of parking charges have indicated that they will be challenging the law wrt "additional powers to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges providing certain conditions are met".
Also, it will be open to every keeper to first ask for evidence that the "unpaid charge" notice they have received is legal in the sense that the issuer can prove legal authority to act on behalf of the landowner. So first the land has to be shown to belong to a landowner, the agent of that landowner has to show that they have been legally appointed as the agent to collect the charge on behalf of that landowner, and if the keeper asks for proof, the agent/landowner has to prove the loss suffered by the landowner.
|
For most car parks where these problems arise (such as Supermarkets), the solution is to install entry/exit barriers, and get the fee paid at time of exit.
They can easily give you the free first 2 hours or whatever by having the ticket validated at a checkout - say if you have spent over £X or £Y.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 14 Sep 12 at 13:12
|
>> For most car parks where these problems arise (such as Supermarkets), the solution is to
>> install entry/exit barriers and with the charge paid at time of exit.
Good in principle John but I suspect dodgy to apply. Sainsbury in Watford had that system 25yrs ago. There was of course a 10-15min queue to leave at peak times, more so when somebody got to barrier and fumbled.
Tesco opened down the road with a free open access car park.
Guess where we shopped?
|
>> Good in principle John but I suspect dodgy to apply. Sainsbury in Watford had that
>> system 25yrs ago. There was of course a 10-15min queue to leave at peak times,
>> more so when somebody got to barrier and fumbled.
>>
>> Tesco opened down the road with a free open access car park.
>>
>> Guess where we shopped?
>>
>>
Proof that competition soon sorts out any excessive charges.
|
|
I wonder how revised charges will be worded with the "parking free so long as you are on site" type of charge.
|
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 outfit.
www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news/current/pressdetail.htm?pk=1505
I shall be keeping a watching brief for reported cases etc.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 28 Sep 12 at 13:10
|
|
Any changes to only being able to pursue the driver for the claim and not having to disclose who the driver was at the time?
|
>> Any changes to only being able to pursue the driver for the claim and not
>> having to disclose who the driver was at the time?
Yes. That's the whole point. Clamping and towing on private land have been outlawed. As a quid pro quo the parking industry have win a statutory provision that allows them to pursue the keeper.
The keeper cannot be forced to name another driver but if he does not then he's liable.
What happens if he names an au-pair who's now back in, say, Lithuania or Mr M Mouse is not clear.
|
Parking on Private Land - Bromptonaut
