Excel Parking / BW Legal - N1 Claim Form

Yes you could. No obligation on you to say who the driver was. Judge may get a bit irked and say why didn't you identify the driver if you know who they were, and you then just quote POFA and Henry Gleenslade back at him and say that you don't have to, the claim is against you and you are defending it as is your right. The law is not that you must identify the driver, it is that you can if you wish and you don't.
A (cross) judge may well exercise his power to make a finding, on the balance of probabilities, that you were the driver though.


Are you going to say in your defence that you weren't the driver? If you are denying that you were, you should. You should also admit at the very beginning of the defence that you are the registered keeper.
"The Defendant admits that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the relevant time, and denies that he was the driver". Or something like that.

Ironman1354 wrote: »

I could maintain that I was there without admitting that I was the driver? I was with my wife at the time.

You could be more vague if you wished and say you were with a family member, or were an occupant of the car, and witnessed the conversation.

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Of course the trouble with arguing that is that you are denying (or not admitting) that you are the driver, so how can you prove what the operative said/did?

Indeed and your opening post tells a different story. You need to get your ducks in a row. A 'not the driver' defence is stronger when you can honestly assert that you were NOT he driver... it's even stronger if you can prove it.

Saying 'I can't remember' or 'maybe I was, maybe I wasn't' leaves you open to the balance of probabilities and imho your defence as it stands wouldn't fare well in this case.

Your strongest argument is that you complied with the T&Cs and the claimant - through their own operative- knows this you've also got proof that you did. You have engaged the claimant and tried to resolve this in accordance with theur code of practice

You have acted reasonably and in good faith at all times and this is a good position in court. There are other failed claims where the consumer has acted reasonably in trying to comply with the T&Cs but has still been invoiced and taken to court.

Here's one blogged by the prankster:

Excel v Ms C C8DP36F0
Ms C parked in the Peel Centre, and bought a ticket. She typed in her reg, and it printed "P". The judge made a finding of fact that her evidence was truthful, and that she purchased a ticket in compliance with the terms.

Accordingly, as she was NOT in breach of contact, Excel were not entitled to ticket her.

The claim was dismissed with £86.55 costs

Prankster Notes
Excel's claims that the ANPR and the ticket machine are synchronised are false, and it is not the responsibility of the consumer to help them fix it.

And here's another:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/excel-parking-get-gladstonedby-bw-legal.html

These cases aren't exactly the same as yours as they are more about machine failure but they establish that the judge may well accept that you have acted reasonably in trying to comply with the T&C's

Ironman and Lamilad I couldn't agree more.


A couple of forum users have come unstuck recently on denying they were the driver, when they clearly were, and then the judge found they were. This puts them on the back foot as the judge doesn't believe them in one respect so can find that their evidence is not credible in other respects (and these people did have other good defences).

I think where you have a good defence it is pointless to deny being the driver. It makes you look evasive and detracts from the strength of your other arguments.


So the question is do you admit to being the driver and go all out to attack the signage and rely on the conversation with the operative as either amending the terms of the contract, or creating a new contract? I think these arguments are more strongly put as driver than as bystander keeper.