Parking tickets, who is liable....
Discussion
Sorry to ask this, it is somthing that occured to me whilst reading through several of the "tescos car park ANPR" etc threads.
When you get a parking ticket is it the Registered Keeper of the vehicle that is liable for the fine or the person that was driving the vehicle (as which a speeding fine) or does it differ from public roads to private car parks?
Thanks
When you get a parking ticket is it the Registered Keeper of the vehicle that is liable for the fine or the person that was driving the vehicle (as which a speeding fine) or does it differ from public roads to private car parks?
Thanks
Well, if the ticket is issued by the council, then the registered user is liable for the ticket.
Any ticket issued by private companies working for the likes of tesco and B&Q, can only issue proceedings against the driver, NOT the registered keeper. The problem there lies in how can they contact thr driver, as the registered keeper has NO obligation under law to disclose who was driving. Hence these tickets are not worth there equivelent weight in bog paper.
Any ticket issued by private companies working for the likes of tesco and B&Q, can only issue proceedings against the driver, NOT the registered keeper. The problem there lies in how can they contact thr driver, as the registered keeper has NO obligation under law to disclose who was driving. Hence these tickets are not worth there equivelent weight in bog paper.
Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regs 2002
Disclosure of registration and licensing particulars
27. - (1) The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use -
(a) by a local authority for any purpose connected with the investigation of an offence or of a decriminalised parking contravention;
(b) by a chief officer of police;
(c) by a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(d) by an officer of Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland; or
(e) by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.
(2) Particulars may be provided to such a person as is mentioned in paragraph (1)(e) on payment of such fee, if any, of such amount as appears to the Secretary of State reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
Tesco enforces use 1(a) for justification under 1(e).
dvd
Disclosure of registration and licensing particulars
27. - (1) The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use -
(a) by a local authority for any purpose connected with the investigation of an offence or of a decriminalised parking contravention;
(b) by a chief officer of police;
(c) by a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(d) by an officer of Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland; or
(e) by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.
(2) Particulars may be provided to such a person as is mentioned in paragraph (1)(e) on payment of such fee, if any, of such amount as appears to the Secretary of State reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
Tesco enforces use 1(a) for justification under 1(e).
dvd
Fidgits said:
Well, the fine has to be paid.
Ideally the person responsible for the fine should pay it - however, my understanding is it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure the fine is paid.
It's NOT a fine.Ideally the person responsible for the fine should pay it - however, my understanding is it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure the fine is paid.
To put it simply:
1) In private car parks, the contract is between the DRIVER and the car park operator.
2) The Registered Keeper CANNOT be forced to disclose who was driving.
3) There is no onus in law for the RK to ensure the driver pays any charge.
Streaky
Edited by streaky on Thursday 28th June 19:00
davido140 said:
When you get a parking ticket is it the Registered Keeper of the vehicle that is liable for the fine or the person that was driving the vehicle (as which a speeding fine) or does it differ from public roads to private car parks?
Thanks
Private tickets (Tesco et al) - contract is with driver, liability is strictly with driver as streaky says. Thanks
Other tickets, registered keeper is liable for the fine unless they claim that the car was taken without their consent.
This is why all the Tesco stuff is *totally* unenforceable and you must NEVER pay; by the same token you are a bit screwed if you lend your car to a mate and they get a PCN. If they don't stump up you gotta pay unless you say they nicked the car. (except you probably don't have to pay anyway since the majority of tickets are incorrectly issued or are nullified by wrong dates/wording etc.,)
roosevelt said:
How do 'private' companies get hold of the Registered keeper data in the first place?? Or is this info exempt from the data protection act?? Does that mean anyone can obtain data from the DVLA??
Becaus the state sells your private details for profit. That is what it thinks of you and your data. It also makes your private data available to foreign countries.Yes anyone can obtain the data. They don't care who they sell it to. To avoid scandel you have to show a need - "damaged while parked" is one of many responses that will get you the data.
If you want for even more money they will provide you a direct data feed so you can look up RK data all day long from your own computer system.
They are an equal opportunity provider and having a crinimal record for lets say car theft would not prevent them sending the details.
Edited by bluepolarbear on Friday 29th June 07:57
streaky said:
Fidgits said:
Well, the fine has to be paid.
Ideally the person responsible for the fine should pay it - however, my understanding is it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure the fine is paid.
It's NOT a fine.Ideally the person responsible for the fine should pay it - however, my understanding is it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure the fine is paid.
To put it simply:
1) In private car parks, the contract is between the DRIVER and the car park operator.
2) The Registered Keeper CANNOT be forced to disclose who was driving.
3) There is no onus in law for the RK to ensure the driver pays any charge.
Streaky
Edited by streaky on Thursday 28th June 19:00
The only possiblity for private company is the could sue the driver and hope the court will find that "on the balance of probabilities" the registered keeper was liable, and this might be possible if the RK declines to comment on who the driver was. If they said "it wasn't me, but I am not making any comment" it might be trickier.
davido140 said:
streaky said:
Fidgits said:
Well, the fine has to be paid.
Ideally the person responsible for the fine should pay it - however, my understanding is it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure the fine is paid.
It's NOT a fine.Ideally the person responsible for the fine should pay it - however, my understanding is it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure the fine is paid.
To put it simply:
1) In private car parks, the contract is between the DRIVER and the car park operator.
2) The Registered Keeper CANNOT be forced to disclose who was driving.
3) There is no onus in law for the RK to ensure the driver pays any charge.
Streaky
Edited by streaky on Thursday 28th June 19:00
>>>>It's NOT a fine.
To put it simply:
1) In private car parks, the contract is between the DRIVER and the car park operator.
2) The Registered Keeper CANNOT be forced to disclose who was driving.
3) There is no onus in law for the RK to ensure the driver pays any charge.<<<<<<
Exactly as I see it.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There seems to be blurring of understanding in that PCN's at their point of origin will have some statutory authority not to do it e.g. double yellow lines and SOME Local Authority Off Street Parking Orders etc. The Reg Keeper in these cases is held responsible unless the actual driver owns up. He has to pay a PENALTY - (unless Plod is involved in which case it is a FINE.) In decriminalisation (LA taking over enforcement) of such offences he does not have to name the driver but if he doesn't he takes the rap. Written in Statute.
For parking at Supermarkets, private patches of land, then there is no Statutory Instrument to prohibit but then, as stated it
enters the realms of civil law in the form of 'damages' (for a better word) - in a contract between two people e.g. You can park on my land but if you stay too long etc then I will CHARGE you. In the erection of signs to this effect that conditions apply, the DRIVER of the car involved accepts these conditions. In these cases the contract, as I see it, is with the person actually parking the vehicle.
Again as I see it there is no compulsion in these cases for the Reg Keeper to name the driver. The 'contract' is between the driver and the land owner/ Firm charged with administrating on owners behalf.
A point I am not sure on is if County Court action to recover their pound of flesh was taken what a Judge would decree in the realms of civil law the responsibilities of a Reg Keeper in such cases.
Step forward those of you with extensive knowledge on the law of Contract for it looks as if there is a valid loophole to evade such charges.
dvd
To put it simply:
1) In private car parks, the contract is between the DRIVER and the car park operator.
2) The Registered Keeper CANNOT be forced to disclose who was driving.
3) There is no onus in law for the RK to ensure the driver pays any charge.<<<<<<
Exactly as I see it.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There seems to be blurring of understanding in that PCN's at their point of origin will have some statutory authority not to do it e.g. double yellow lines and SOME Local Authority Off Street Parking Orders etc. The Reg Keeper in these cases is held responsible unless the actual driver owns up. He has to pay a PENALTY - (unless Plod is involved in which case it is a FINE.) In decriminalisation (LA taking over enforcement) of such offences he does not have to name the driver but if he doesn't he takes the rap. Written in Statute.
For parking at Supermarkets, private patches of land, then there is no Statutory Instrument to prohibit but then, as stated it
enters the realms of civil law in the form of 'damages' (for a better word) - in a contract between two people e.g. You can park on my land but if you stay too long etc then I will CHARGE you. In the erection of signs to this effect that conditions apply, the DRIVER of the car involved accepts these conditions. In these cases the contract, as I see it, is with the person actually parking the vehicle.
Again as I see it there is no compulsion in these cases for the Reg Keeper to name the driver. The 'contract' is between the driver and the land owner/ Firm charged with administrating on owners behalf.
A point I am not sure on is if County Court action to recover their pound of flesh was taken what a Judge would decree in the realms of civil law the responsibilities of a Reg Keeper in such cases.
Step forward those of you with extensive knowledge on the law of Contract for it looks as if there is a valid loophole to evade such charges.
dvd
What it actually needs is a case where RK is out of country and proveable with documentary and witness evidence to be so; e.g. tickets, boarding cards, hotel bills, receipts, meeting minutes, witness statements bla di bla.
Another approved and insured driver to take RK's vehicle in his/her absence and incur one of these civil parking charges. It might be a good idea to have various other forms of corroborating evidence on hand, independant witness as passenger. (OMG I'm getting into Idris Francis mode
)
When the paperwork starts arriving say "see you in court."
Trouble is it would never get there.
Plus I know that the money grabbing scum sucking leeches that run these operations would fall foul of the law so early in their operations that I, for one, would fail to keep my powder dry and thus scare them off before they had enough rope with which to hang themselves in front of M'Lud.
Another approved and insured driver to take RK's vehicle in his/her absence and incur one of these civil parking charges. It might be a good idea to have various other forms of corroborating evidence on hand, independant witness as passenger. (OMG I'm getting into Idris Francis mode
)When the paperwork starts arriving say "see you in court."
Trouble is it would never get there.
Plus I know that the money grabbing scum sucking leeches that run these operations would fall foul of the law so early in their operations that I, for one, would fail to keep my powder dry and thus scare them off before they had enough rope with which to hang themselves in front of M'Lud.
Dwight VanDriver said:
>>>>It's NOT a fine.
To put it simply:
1) In private car parks, the contract is between the DRIVER and the car park operator.
2) The Registered Keeper CANNOT be forced to disclose who was driving.
3) There is no onus in law for the RK to ensure the driver pays any charge.<<<<<<
Exactly as I see it.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There seems to be blurring of understanding in that PCN's at their point of origin will have some statutory authority not to do it e.g. double yellow lines and SOME Local Authority Off Street Parking Orders etc. The Reg Keeper in these cases is held responsible unless the actual driver owns up. He has to pay a PENALTY - (unless Plod is involved in which case it is a FINE.) In decriminalisation (LA taking over enforcement) of such offences he does not have to name the driver but if he doesn't he takes the rap. Written in Statute.
For parking at Supermarkets, private patches of land, then there is no Statutory Instrument to prohibit but then, as stated it
enters the realms of civil law in the form of 'damages' (for a better word) - in a contract between two people e.g. You can park on my land but if you stay too long etc then I will CHARGE you. In the erection of signs to this effect that conditions apply, the DRIVER of the car involved accepts these conditions. In these cases the contract, as I see it, is with the person actually parking the vehicle.
Again as I see it there is no compulsion in these cases for the Reg Keeper to name the driver. The 'contract' is between the driver and the land owner/ Firm charged with administrating on owners behalf.
A point I am not sure on is if County Court action to recover their pound of flesh was taken what a Judge would decree in the realms of civil law the responsibilities of a Reg Keeper in such cases.
Step forward those of you with extensive knowledge on the law of Contract for it looks as if there is a valid loophole to evade such charges.
dvd
That should be a sticky for this type of question!To put it simply:
1) In private car parks, the contract is between the DRIVER and the car park operator.
2) The Registered Keeper CANNOT be forced to disclose who was driving.
3) There is no onus in law for the RK to ensure the driver pays any charge.<<<<<<
Exactly as I see it.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There seems to be blurring of understanding in that PCN's at their point of origin will have some statutory authority not to do it e.g. double yellow lines and SOME Local Authority Off Street Parking Orders etc. The Reg Keeper in these cases is held responsible unless the actual driver owns up. He has to pay a PENALTY - (unless Plod is involved in which case it is a FINE.) In decriminalisation (LA taking over enforcement) of such offences he does not have to name the driver but if he doesn't he takes the rap. Written in Statute.
For parking at Supermarkets, private patches of land, then there is no Statutory Instrument to prohibit but then, as stated it
enters the realms of civil law in the form of 'damages' (for a better word) - in a contract between two people e.g. You can park on my land but if you stay too long etc then I will CHARGE you. In the erection of signs to this effect that conditions apply, the DRIVER of the car involved accepts these conditions. In these cases the contract, as I see it, is with the person actually parking the vehicle.
Again as I see it there is no compulsion in these cases for the Reg Keeper to name the driver. The 'contract' is between the driver and the land owner/ Firm charged with administrating on owners behalf.
A point I am not sure on is if County Court action to recover their pound of flesh was taken what a Judge would decree in the realms of civil law the responsibilities of a Reg Keeper in such cases.
Step forward those of you with extensive knowledge on the law of Contract for it looks as if there is a valid loophole to evade such charges.
dvd
I would say it is not a 'loophole' as such, but a point of contract. This situation is like any other in that if A and B have a contract and A wants to sue B, then unless B accepts all of the terms then it is up to A to prove the contract valid.
The fact that the supermarket knows who the registered keeper is I dont think (legally anyway) matters. In court, the registered keeper may be asked if they were driving the car at the time - and in THAT situation they would be cornered if they were indeed the driver. Similarly, if the supermarket has some kind of compelling CCTV evidence then this would also prove the contract valid.
However, in practice though over £30 or whatever the fine though it is simply not worth the enforcement companies effort to take you to court. There is also the financial risk should they lose the case that they have but £30 in court fees and solicitors time and money to chase a case they lose.
JustinP1 said:
In court, the registered keeper may be asked if they were driving the car at the time - and in THAT situation they would be cornered if they were indeed the driver. Similarly, if the supermarket has some kind of compelling CCTV evidence then this would also prove the contract valid.
I think the first fact that should be cleared up in court if for the prosecution to prove who their contract is with. It's not up to the defence to prove it wasn't them (as in a criminal proceeding.)This is where it *should* all apart, when they can't prove who the contract is with, they can only assume. And if the contract can't be proved with the RK, then they surely aren't compelled to answer any further questions as they aren't on trial.
JustinP1 said:
In court, the registered keeper may be asked if they were driving the car at the time - and in THAT situation they would be cornered if they were indeed the driver.
I think in that scenario the only way to avoid being cornered would be to use my scenario, ie RK not driver and proveable, with more than one possible other drivers, then RK cannot be cornered into saying that they know exactly who the driver was for sure.JustinP1 said:
Similarly, if the supermarket has some kind of compelling CCTV evidence then this would also prove the contract valid.
Obviously with good CCTV evidence then the RK could be compelled to say who the driver is, or of course the enforcement company could do their job properly, identify the driver and take them to court.JustinP1 said:
However, in practice though over £30 or whatever the fine though it is simply not worth the enforcement companies effort to take you to court. There is also the financial risk should they lose the case that they have but £30 in court fees and solicitors time and money to chase a case they lose.
Exactly so.With the method one outfit uses reasonably local on our patch is just right for a sting operation more or less on lines outlined above, but with certain variations. I'm convinced that I can organise a set up where no breach of contract had been committed, whereabouts of all individuals and vehicle proveable, thus the enforcement company would be trying to claim money where no breach of contract had actually been committed, just that they are such useless onanists their system wouldn't realise that.
Then wait until they fall foul of the legislation in chasing the bill and if the enforcement company won't go to court for reasons well discussed, then give them enough rope and counter sue?
I am, at this point, assuming that plod wouldn't want to know even though criminal offences are being committed by the enforcement companies and their collection agents, and I suspect that to get plod to do anything would sadly end up with some poor front desk wallah being threatened with the rubber heeled ones before they'd take a formal complaint report so why put ground level plod through that.
Obviously if a breach of contract had occurred there is a counter risk in this, that the case would be found against one, but I like the approach which suggests you make a carefully worded offer "Without prejudice save as to costs" for £1-2 say to cover the actual cost of the use of the car park. Discussion about this on pepipoo. That might limit financial risk.
Thoughts?
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 30th June 16:13
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff