Evidence that I wasnt driving

SPE

I have followed the template to say that I wasnt the driver of a car that has parked over the time limit at a parking eye car park. The subsequent letter that I have received quotes a 2008 court case where a Mr T claimed not to be the driver, however the court ruled that on the 'balance of probability' he was.

As I 100% wasn't the driver should I be providing actual evidence to that effect or simply follow the pro-fprma which reiterates the 1st letter, states that they should contact me no further and provides no actual evidence.

Thanks.

vax2002

Do what you should have done in the first place, ignore them and ignore all the silly letters they send .
It is a scam of impersonation and mimicking of authority.

trisontana

What you do now is ignore these clowns and stop taking them too seriously.They keep quoting that very old case. What they forget to do is list the cases where parking companies have lost. As for mister T, he "claimed he wasn't the driver" even though he had boasted on a forum that he was. The judge didn't take too kindly to that and found against him.

That template letter should never have been sent. The current thinking is that the "ignore" tactic is much better.

Sirdan

Agreed totally ignore them.

Even if you give them 100% evidence you were not driving, they will still harass you with all sorts of rubbish about how you must know who was driving by law (not true) and you must tell them who it was (also not true).

They will probably try this even if you ignore them too ..so why waste your time and effort corresponding with them ?

Coupon-mad

SPE wrote: »

I have followed the template to say that I wasnt the driver of a car that has parked over the time limit at a parking eye car park. The subsequent letter that I have received quotes a 2008 court case where a Mr T claimed not to be the driver, however the court ruled that on the 'balance of probability' he was.

As I 100% wasn't the driver should I be providing actual evidence to that effect or simply follow the pro-fprma which reiterates the 1st letter, states that they should contact me no further and provides no actual evidence.

Thanks.

Classic mistake. You read an old undated article (from 3 years ago). Used an old template. Did not check with the current thinking on the forum.

No harm done but when on a website with a forum, never just go by old website articles - always look at the current forum posts!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

HTH

esmerobbo

"Yawn" still using the Stephen Thomas case, wonder if they will get a new template for the Perky V Gapara being a precedent.:rotfl: :rotfl:

Its strange how they think this case has any relevance if the keeper was not the driver! By stating what they do after you tell them you were not driving is very close to actually calling you a liar!

The one advantage if you were one of the very few who did go to court, and the Judge says why did you ignore them, then we would have a defence to that by producing the irrelevant crap they send you if you do!

AlexisV

There has never ever been a case where the person being taken to court who wasn't the driver has lost.

PPC's hate it when they make a claim and then the form comes back saying "I wasn't the driver."

It just means they've just thrown £25 down the drain.

"Balance of probabilities" just means a decision taken on the evidence available. The amount and strength of evidence just has to be less than in criminal court. It does not mean the parking company has to provide NO evidence - they do.