Excel Parking - I wasn't the driver!

Coupon-mad

sandyb113 wrote: »

Hi thanks for all your advice!

The letter I received about passing on the driver details reads as follows:

In response to your correspondence dated @/@/11 we acknowledge your statement that you are the registered keeper however you were not the driver on the @@/@@/10 when the parking contravention was committed.

In the view of this fact we request you provide us with the name and address of the driver in charge of the vehicle on the said date so that we may pursue this matter of the outstanding charge accordingly. Pursuant to paragraph 4.2 of the pre-action protocol, we must advise you that this is a reasonable request in order that we may undertake the early and full exchange of information about the prospective legal claim and enable the driver the opportunity to avoid civil proceedings by settling the charge before commencement of proceedings.

Failure to provide the information as requested may constitute a non-compliance of the pre-action protocols and could result on court proceedings being brought against the vehicle registered keeper and judgement obtained for failing to adhere to said protocols and liability for the charge outstanding.

Furthermore as the registered keeper of a vehicle you are legally required under the road traffic act to ensure that any vehicle legally registered to you, if not driven by you, is driven by a person to which you have given consent and can verify that they are legally licenced and insured to do so.

It's a standard template letter. No-one has read your letter nor even lifted a finger to 'type' any reply to you, it's a very old computerised letter!

Here it is quoted on CAG forums over 2 years ago and it's not the only time we have seen those exact words!

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?176932-Parked-in-disabled-spot-but-left-before-ticket-issued

Look at post number 5 - familiar? :rotfl:

sandyb113

Thank you all for your advice, I can stop worrying now... Feel little stupid worrying about it after actually understanding the rubbish they quote in their letters!!

Think I may now just keep all their harassing and upsetting letters ready for my complaint I'll do about them!!

Sirdan

sandyb113 wrote: »

Thank you all for your advice, I can stop worrying now... Feel little stupid worrying about it after actually understanding the rubbish they quote in their letters!!

Think I may now just keep all their harassing and upsetting letters ready for my complaint I'll do about them!!

What a load of bull it is. The RTA does indeed require you to ensure that anyone who you allow to drive your vehicle is insured.(S143 rta 1988)
Parking company morons would have us believe this means you should know who is driving at all times ...utter bilge ..put simply if you only allow two other people to drive your car and you know they are both insured you are within the law ..there is nothing that says you have to know which of those two is driving at any given time.

Or put another way the vehicle manager at my employers has given permission for approximately 40 people to use any one of 4 vehicles as required..does this mean that if I phone him he should be able to know who is driving all of them right now ??? Obviously as a company there is a record kept but what makes a parking company think that a private individual has to keep such records ?..!!!

As for pre action protocols perhaps whoever wrote the letter should have actually read what they say..nothing in there about you giving them whatever information they ask for ..in fact I would suggest once you have told them they are claiming against the wrong person you have met what is required.

See Annex A here .. http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/contents/practice_directions/pd_pre-action_conduct.htm

Coblcris

That letter from Roxburghe concerning the pre action protocols is, in my view, all the more reason for serious complaints to be made.
As for:
"Furthermore as the registered keeper of a vehicle you are legally required under the road traffic act to ensure that any vehicle legally registered to you, if not driven by you, is driven by a person to which you have given consent and can verify that they are legally licenced and insured to do so."
That is yet another good reason for complaint. The RTA does not impose this at all. The person you give consent to may hand the vehicle to yet another person without your knowledge.
Though I note that they have improved on their previous and completely outrageous text on this issue.

Fire up your pen !

Sirdan

Coblcris wrote: »

That letter from Roxburghe concerning the pre action protocols is, in my view, all the more reason for serious complaints to be made.
As for:
"Furthermore as the registered keeper of a vehicle you are legally required under the road traffic act to ensure that any vehicle legally registered to you, if not driven by you, is driven by a person to which you have given consent and can verify that they are legally licenced and insured to do so."
That is yet another good reason for complaint. The RTA does not impose this at all. The person you give consent to may hand the vehicle to yet another person without your knowledge.
Though I note that they have improved on their previous and completely outrageous text on this issue.

Fire up your pen !

What it actually says is this
"a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act."

So anyone you give consent to you need to know they are insured but yes if that person then allows another party to drive without your consent or knowledge then it is they who breach Section 143 not you.

So it is entirely possible for someone to drive your car without having the requisite insurance without you being guilty of any offence. It is the person who allowed them to drive and the driver who are comitting the offences ...nice try Roxburke / Graham White ...back to law school I think...surely Mr Sobell as a legally qualified solicitor is aware of the principle in law of mens rea ...in which case if it is his name on the letter he is deliberately misleading recipients in order to decieve them into disclosing information which they are not obliged to give .. VERY NAUGHTY !

AlexisV

Yes, if you're insured to drive the vehicle (and most fully comp policies enable you to drive any vehicle third party) then you can do. Consent is only an issue if it has been clearly stolen.

Sirdan

AlexisV wrote: »

Yes, if you're insured to drive the vehicle (and most fully comp policies enable you to drive any vehicle third party) then you can do. Consent is only an issue if it has been clearly stolen.

All the policies I've ever have only allowed me to drive third party "any vehicle with the owners permission"

AlexisV

What is permission though? If you take your mum's car to the shops you aren't going to get a written permission slip. You'd more likely shout "just going to the shop mum" and take the key!

sandyb113

Hi all,

Had another letter from Graham White today but checking out the letters on here they seemed to have jumped from letter 1 Graham White to letter (final warning) I didn't get letter's 2 and 3?? Is that right???
I suppose I should be happy that this SHOULD?? be the last I hear from them but I am just worried they may have changed how they do things???
Sorry all just having a worry wobble!!!

vax2002

Which part of the word "Ignore" are you struggling with, many here have all had the full set of begging letters and we are all still here completely unaffected and we all have our money in our own pockets.