We need your support to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can continue to hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
Amendment 172 seeks to remove subsection (2) from section 58U. The removal of that subsection would significantly limit the reach of the keeper liability provisions, as it would leave considerable doubt about whether they apply to instances of drivers parking in parking areas that they are not permitted to park in and to instances where an allocated parking time has been exceeded. Those practices are precisely the sorts of irresponsible parking that the keeper liability provisions attempt to address.
Amendment 173 seeks to amend the first condition that must be met before a creditor can rely on the keeper liability provisions in the bill. Creditors have the right to enforce against the driver, but they cannot, as they do not know the driver’s name or address. The bill says that the latter is
“an address at which the driver for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted.”
In this context, the word “conveniently” limits the potential addresses that can be caught by the provision. If the word is removed, the potential addresses at which the driver could be contacted could be very far reaching. That amendment could also lead to confusion as to what addresses could be caught, and it could ultimately reduce a creditor’s ability to rely on the keeper liability provisions.