Printfriendly

Wednesday, 12 July 2017

DfT block byelaw at John Lennon Airport to make it an offence for keeper not to name driver

Peel Holdings have for many years been trying to get new byelaws passed at John Lennon Airport.

The Department of Transport have been blocking the changes. It seems that one of the sticking points is the desire of Peel Holdings to make it an offence for the keeper not to name the driver of a vehicle (byelaw 8.5).


It is worth noting that parliament itself considered this option when enacting the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4. They refused it.

Here is the relevant extract from the Impact Assessment document


The full correspondence between the DfT and Peel Holdings is available in this pepipoo thread, post #200.

Here are some more wise words from the DfT:


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



Posted by at

6 comments:

  1. SteveUK12 July 2017 at 14:41

    ". . make it an offence for driver not to name keeper".

    Surely that should read ". . . make it an offence for keeper not to name driver"?

    They can find the registered keeper details from the vehicle registration!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Parking Prankster12 July 2017 at 21:45

    Ay yes...fixed

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown13 July 2017 at 00:37

    Looks like the DfT have Peel between a rock and a hard place, suggesting that recourse of the airport operator in relation to unauthorised parking can be dealt with as a contractural matter. Of course, PoFA specifically excludes keeper responsibility and they are denied the right to criminalise refusal to name the driver.

    Let's hope the DfT maintain this stance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fractious Tart13 July 2017 at 02:29

    Of particular note is the mention "Given that byelaws may not regulate traffic on roads to which "normal" road traffic legislation applies then such a byelaw would be limited in its scope".

    That answers a question that has been raised many times for which we're only ever obtained obfuscated responses from the Department of Transport.
    That would effectively seem to be a total way out of any airport roadside stopping incident. The normal RTA rules should apply, as we've always suspected.
    Is this the end of the beginning, or the beginning of the end?
    Shares in VCS and the rest of the scum anyone.........?

    Application of this information should also be used against Ports, Railways, and any other place where byelaws exist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. scalyback14 July 2017 at 09:24

    How can you criminalise not naming the driver, especially if the keeper genuinely does not know who was driving? (Like on holiday, rest of family left with the car.)
    How in English law, can you be penalised for information you don't have? Found guilty for being innocent?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Unknown14 July 2017 at 09:32

    The police manage to do if very successfully with s172, but they have the backing of Parliament and the law. Peel Holdings just want to pretend.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)