Transfer of liability

Perfo · 14 October 2016 at 7:50PM

A quick question (I hope) . My daughter parked somewhere and got a window sticker from CPP. She decided not to mention it to me and thus a good few weeks later I got a letter as the RK.
I replied to CPP and said I was not the driver. They said I had 28 days to say whom the driver was. As this was before I'd been educated on this site I replied and said as I wasn't there I can't confirm whom the driver was but as the car is mainly used by my daughter and I'm the only other driver they could contact her if they wished..

This was some months ago (January 2016) and I've received regular letters asking whom the driver was to which I've always replied not me...

Got a letter from DRP today. I have read the sticky so know they are all hot air (and haven't started a new thread about them) but I thought I'd ring their office just to see what they said..

They state I had 28 days to tell their clients (CPP) whom the driver was so that the CPP could transfer liability to the driver. As I hadn't done that then the liability cannot be transferred and it remains with the RK.

I stated I didn't have any liability in the first place so whether it could be transferred or not is of little concern to me.. They said if it went to court the judge would ask why I didn't phone my daughter and ascertain if she was driving and that the fact I didn't meant I was deliberately making things difficult. I stated it wasn't my job to
chase people to get confessions out of them.
As long as I know I didn't park there and thus I didn't enter in to any sort of contract then anything else that may or may not have happened isn't my liability. They basically said it was my fault and I'd have to pay up and they would be advising their clients to go to court..

I fully expect they would say things like this anyway regardless of what reasons I gave to mitigate..that's how they make money after all.

However it did start me trying to find out about this transfer of liability thing...is there any truth in what they've said ?

Common sense dictates If i didn't / couldn't have seen the signs then I'm not liable but I know the law and common sense are not always obviously connected..

Thanks

Perfo · 14 October 2016 at 8:10PM

sorry I forgot to mention they claim keeper liability due to

"keeper liability has been established under the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 20122

beamerguy · 14 October 2016 at 9:22PM

Perfo wrote: »

sorry I forgot to mention they claim keeper liability due to

"keeper liability has been established under the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 20122

That's because they got the info from the DVLA.

But hey, CPP are just scamming you. DRP are just plain stupid, they are simply toothless debt collectors and to tell you what a judge might say gives you some idea of the low level intelligence they have.

IGNORE DRP ..... all they can do is pass it back to CPP and if you hear futher from them, let us know.

Now, the silly letters you get from DRP can be used in many ways, the cat litter, firelighters, paper airplanes etc etc

HO87 · 14 October 2016 at 10:09PM

Provided CPP have fulfilled all of the requirements of Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 then they can hold the vehicle keeper liable (this was the quid pro quo to parking companies for them giving up clamping). Few companies manage to tick every box.

The obvious element of the Schedule DRP are [conveniently] missing is that you are not under any obligation to disclose the identity of the driver - they may only ask for it.

Then again DRP are just barrel-scraping debt collectors with no powers. Like all debt collectors they make up for their complete lack of any powers by pretending that they do and making as much noise as they can - its the only way they can persuade their victims to pay up.

Coupon-mad · 15 October 2016 at 12:40AM

Why not show us the NTK? We can spot the flaws in it, not many are compliant.

Fruitcake · 15 October 2016 at 1:10AM

Assuming CPP are Car Parking Plus Ltd, did you get a PoPLA code with your rejection? If so, then I suggest you use it. If not, complain to the BPA and DVLA. You should also complain that you are being asked to identify the driver even though the DVLA told the BPA that they must instruct their members not to do so.

Perfo · 17 October 2016 at 9:09PM

Thanks for the input.
I wont be replying or having anything more to do with DRP and they sent me the next letter in the chain explaining why I still need to pay up right away. The same letter that has already been posted on here a few times..
It's real bad of me but I appear to have misplaced the original NTK I'm guessing I've left it at work..When I find it I'll post it ...
Interesting though that the liability could even possibly be passed on to the owner when it's clearly a contract between whomever saw the signs and decided to park there.. how could it ever be a breach of contract with a party that hasn't even seen the contract ?? tis a puzzlement..

I'll look for the popla code as well. I'll be a lot more informed about the way I go about things if I receive another of these..

The_Deep · 17 October 2016 at 9:31PM

No one, unless they were present, can ever be sure who was driving. Even if someone says they were, are they telling the truth?

One can use the phase "to the best of my knowledge and believe", but you could be wrong.

Did the PPC contact your relative? If not, why not?

I would refer them to Arkle v Pressdram, and ignore everything but a LBA..

jkdd77 · 17 October 2016 at 10:58PM

As regards keeper liability, CPP are lying when they claim that there is a 28 day time limit to name the driver.

As long as the driver is truthfully named before a court claim is filed, a RK who is not the driver has no liability. (Paragraph 5(2): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted)

However, it sounds questionable whether the OP has unequivocally named the driver, but in any event RK liability may not apply for other reasons, and the charge may not necessarily be enforceable.

The_Deep · 18 October 2016 at 10:46AM

AFAICS, the OP has said that he does not know who was driving, but that it was probably his daughter. It appears that the PPC have chosen not to contact the daughter and are pursuing him. Both parties are right in their own way, , as the subtleties of the English Language will almost certainly be lost on the PPC.

However it is no great consequence as this looks like a slam dunk win for the OP if the PPC are misguided enough to go all the way.

Transfer of liability

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free