in Chapter 2, Part 3 of the proposed Protection of Freedoms Bill

Do you already know about Clause 56 and Schedule 4?

If you do, please take the time to sign the e-Petition to prevent this drastic change to civil contract law and to stop Private Parking Companies (PPCs) ripping off the general public any more than they already do.

(The button above opens the e-Petition from the Government's website in a new window)

PLEASE pass this on across social networking sites by simply clicking the icons below or by clicking the counters at the top-left or bottom-right of this page!

I don't. So what's this Protection of Freedoms Bill all about?

There is a piece of legislation currently before the UK Parliament entitled The Protection of Freedoms Bill.

The Bill covers many different important areas such as the use, retention and destruction of fingerprints and DNA profiles, the use of surveillance systems such as private CCTV and safeguarding vulnerable groups.

We are interested in Part 3 of the Bill entitled "Protection of Property from Disproportionate Enforcement Action".  Chapter 2 of Part 3 is designed to regulate the widespread misuse of clamping, vehicle removal and the excessive punitive fines that can be imposed on the general public by unscrupulous Private Parking Companies (PPC).

But I don't use private car parks. Or do I?

Do you go to supermarkets? Do you use DIY stores? Have you been to a fast food restaurant? What about parking at a large out of town shopping centre?

The chances are these were all privately owned car parks.  By parking a vehicle, the driver is entering into a civil contract with the car park owner and therefore accepts any enforcement of that contract.  The PPCs that manage these car parks have been able to fleece the general public for so long due to the lack of legal regulation and a 'code of conduct' drawn up by the British Parking Association (BPA).

So this means the end of Cowboy Clampers?

Well, yes... and no.  As you can imagine, the PPCs see this as an end to the way they make their money and have lobbied Parliament through the BPA in order to create another revenue stream.

Buried within Part 3 Chapter 2 is a rather vague sounding Clause 56 which reads "Schedule 4 (which makes provision for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle in cases where it is not known who was driving the vehicle when the charges were incurred) has effect".

Does that mean what I think it means?

Yes, Schedule 4 allows the parking operator to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges, whether or not the keeper was the driver at the time the charge was incurred.

In other words, they can hold the registered keeper responsible for a breach of the parking contract - a contract in which they, as a separate legal entity, played no part!

It can't get any worse than that, can it?

Oh yes it can.  Schedule 4 also requires parking operators to meet certain conditions before they can pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle for any unpaid charges.  BUT it places no burden of proof on the parking operator to demonstrate that these conditions have been met, nor does it provide a system of dispute resolution for vehicle keepers pursued for payment where these conditions are not met.

I don't park illegally so why should I sign?

This is a fundamental change in civil contract law. If the general public do not oppose it now it will slip into law unchallenged and in the future when a letter from a PPC arrives demanding payment people will ask 'Why didn't anyone warn us about this?'

If a vehicle is caught by a speed camera then the Police have the legal right to pursue a criminal prosecution against the driver.  If I, as the registered keeper, refuse to name the driver who committed the offence then I can be held liable. The key word in that is "criminal".

Under civil contract law, as the registered keeper I am under no obligation to identify the driver at the time of the offence as I was not party to the contract. So, why should powers that are used for criminal cases be applied to a purely civil case?

If this Clause enters into law then a registered keeper who refuses to identify the driver is seen as guilty of the offence and could quite possibly end up with a criminal record even although they have committed no crime. The whole principle of innocent until proven guilty goes out of the window.

What can I do about this?

Please take the time to sign the e-Petition to prevent this drastic change to civil contract law and to stop Private Parking Companies (PPCs) ripping off the general public any more than they already do.

(The button above opens the e-Petition from the Government's website in a new window)

To sign the petition doesn't take any time at all.  If you have more time available, we urge you to contact your local MPs so that they are aware of the level of opposition among the general public.

Find my local MP

PLEASE pass this on across social networking sites by simply clicking the icons below or by clicking the counters at the top-left or bottom-right of this page!

 

Where can I find some more information?

If you want further reading on The Bill then the link below takes you directly to Parliament's website where you can read it in full - search for "Clause 56" and then "Schedule 4" to see the relevant parts.

The Protection of Freedoms Bill

Also you can read up on PPCs, the intimidating letters, the dubious and sometimes illegal methods they use to extract money over at The Daily Telegraph's motoring advice guru Honest John's own website.

HonestJohn.co.uk

Consumer Focus, the statutory consumer champion formed by the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act (2007), The Citizens' Advice Bureau and Trading Standards Institute are also concerned with Clause 56 and have jointly written a good briefing document (in PDF format).

Protection of Freedoms Bill Briefing Document, February 2011

For media, press or general enquiries, please click here