Taxi Driver Online

The new legislation comes under sections 54 to 56 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and reads;

CHAPTER 2

VEHICLES LEFT ON LAND

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

54 Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

(1) A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a) immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b) moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means, intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

(2) The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3) But, where the restriction of the movement of the vehicle is by means of a fixed barrier and the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked, any express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of the driver of the vehicle to the restriction is, for the purposes of subsection (1), lawful authority for the restriction.

(4) A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine,
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6) In this section “motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Alternative remedies in relation to vehicles left on land

55 Extension of powers to remove vehicles from land

(1) Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (removal of vehicles illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked, or abandoned or broken down) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “road” insert “or other land”,
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) after “road”, where it appears for the first time, insert “or other land”, and
(ii) after “road”, where it appears for the second time, insert “or land concerned”,
(c) in paragraph (c) for “, or on any land in the open air,” substitute “or other land”, and
(d) at the end insert “or other land”.

(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “road”, where it appears for the third time, insert “or on land other than a road”, and
(b) after paragraph (a), insert—
“(aa) may provide, in the case of a vehicle which may be removed from land other than a road, for the moving of the vehicle from one position on such land to another position on such land or on any road;”.

56 Recovery of unpaid parking charges

Schedule 4 (which makes provision for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle in certain circumstances) has effect.

[I'm not copying and pasting Schedule 4 of the Act. You can find it here; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... /4/enacted]

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me.

If a owner doesn't know who the driver was, and can convince a court on that point under oath, then they are not convicted of the offence. Take it from me that's the case.

_________________
IDFIMH

Let's get this right, to repeat information given, tried and tested, by the good people of Pepipoo (other sites are available);

Private parking companies (as opposed to local authorities or the police) CANNOT issue a fine or issue a penalty charge. It is illegal despite what their paperwork may say. what they issue is speculative invoices, again usually illegally as they do not contain a VAT number, and contain misleading information. They cannot take you to a criminal court, if you park on private land you have not committed any criminal offence except trespass for which their are tried and tested ways to recover damages.

IF a private parking company were to issue a county court summons against a vehicle's driver for allegedly committing a "parking offence" on "their" land, they cannot send in the bailiffs, put your name on a credit reference black list or shag your cat UNLESS they win the case (highly unlikely), you fail to pay , and they apply to the court to send in the bailiffs. The case of HMRC v VCS effectively puts a stop to a private parking company having right to do anything on land they do not own or are not properly licenced by the landowner to manage on their behalf.

The PPC business case depends solely on the general public not wanting the hassle of dealing with it, plus the threat of court, bailiff, credit reference, so pay up at the cheapest opportunity. some 85% of speculative invoices are paid in this way so their plan works. Figures recently revealed on PPP show that despite the lies told to the government by the BPA, only 800-odd speculative invoices were ever taken to court and of that number about 47 were won by the PPC and most of those because the defendant didn't show up!

In case you have been issued a ticket in a hospital car park, the same applies and there have been a few notable cases, one that springs to mind involves Aintree Hospital Trust; they lost after spending over £7k on legal fees. They have NO RIGHT AT ALL to issue penalty charges. (Dunlop v New Tyre Co springs to mind, dating back to 1920-something re penalty charges.)

In my view, the new law has been drafted cleverly, trying to appease the PPCs but then making life so difficult for them it ought to put paid to most of their antics because under contract law, any agreement is made between the driver and the PPC, not the owner! )

The link to the PPP thread is here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?sho ... ntry736219 The lengthy post by Lynzer sums it up.

As a fellow Pepipoo'er, I fully endorse what Roy says. The new legislation merely confirms that the registered keeper/owner can have no liability, only the driver; Even then, his only liability is in contract or tort, and then to the land owner, not the PPC.

Anyone who receives 'an invoice' from one of these companies is strongly advised to visit PPP where advice of the highest quality is available on an individual basis.

I will take issue with Roy in one respect: The case he refers to is Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v New Garage & Motor co [1915] AC 79 House of Lords where penalties and liquidated damages were distinguished and is the leading case regarding contractual penalties; They ain't legal!!

i was taking to court by aintree hospital by trethowens for parking in a disabled bay and no ticket.

i won

Guess the English will have to stick to reading the goat entrails of a night in after the bailiffs been..

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Proof of the tangerine pudding! Well done, mate.

My point being that as the registered keeper hasn't named another driver it is them that are treated as guilty and taken to court. It is not until that point that the keeper then has to convince the court that they genuinely don't know who the driver was.

My interpretation was that it now becomes a legal obligation for the registered keeper to name the driver (where previous they didn't have to), if they don't they can then be prosecuted for this offence seperate to the parking charge, by the police.

But also that the owner now has the liability unless they name someone else, if they don't then they are treated as having committed the violation (as well as or instead of being done for not naming the driver).

Ermm, what is the offence that has been committed? You cannot commit an offence by parking on private property!

It is NOT an offence for a registered keeper to fail to name a driver of an "offence" on private property, you are mixing this up with Road Traffic Act s172 where the RK is obliged to name the driver for various RTA offences including speeding. Nothing at all to do with parking!

Any action taken by the LANDOWNER would have to be for trespass, not in itself a criminal offence under most circumstances. you cannot be prosecuted for it, only sued for damages, two entirely different things. One is dealt with in a criminal court, the other in a civil court where you cannot be found guilty of anything.

Cabbyman, yes, you're right, I got the names wrong, and to Tangerine, you prove the point. the PPCs rarely win a case against "illegal" parking on private property. for everyone's information, Blue Badges have absolutely no validity on private property, nor do disabled parking bays. I wouldn't however encourage indiscriminate parking in disabled bays.

Beware on airports and railway stations where bye-laws apply; clamping is still legal there and the facility operators CAN issue penalty charges.