Will it be legal to give False driver details to PPC?

BASFORDLAD

When the new law comes in October the has been some discussion whether advising a PPC that someone else was the driver.

Is anyone able to get professional advice as to whether this is actually legal or not?

I am quite happy to do this if its legal.

If the professional advice that this is illegal and thus committing a criminal act i would not want to be involved in it.

So if anyone can find out then please let us know

trisontana

That's the problem with this new act. It's a mongrel, with bits of statute law grafted onto civil law. A right mess.

LincolnshireYokel

Needs a test case.

I think the better plan is to always decline to name the driver, let them pursue the RK then demolish the case with the usual defences plus the fact the RK has no contract with third parties.

They have tried to bypass the problem of not being able to identify the driver with this new law, however, they havent removed the other legal obstacles such as no contract, penalty charge etc. As far as I can see, nothings changed, in fact they have made it even less likely to be able to win in court due the glaring legal anomoly of third party contract. I cant see that standing up to a judicial review, even if it survives a test case.

bazster

If you are confident that the charge notice is a meaningless piece of paper with no legal basis (i.e. it's a lie in itself), how can it possibly be illegal to lie in response to it? If I sent you a letter demanding money on some totally spurious grounds, would it be illegal for you to respond with a pack of lies? I don't think so.

n.b. there is nothing in the RK liability clauses that obliges the RK to nominate the driver, or to respond in any way at all, or provides for sanctions if the RK fails to respond or responds inaccurately.

But the RK stuff is pure baloney anyway. Only someone who holds a "relevant contract" can hold the RK liable, and I've yet to see any explanation of how a PPC can hold a relevant contract, or indeed any contract.

If you park at Tesco and you get a notice from Tesco holding the RK liable for some alleged breach of contract then there might be something in it, but if the notice is from Scumbag Parking it's meaningless, because Scumbag has no contract, let alone a "relevant" one.

BASFORDLAD

Basster i see where you are coming from

Its just about giving the right advice and not condoning a criminal act or committing one ourselves in the process

BASFORDLAD

LincolnshireYokel i don't really want to be a test case lol!

bazster

Fair enough, these scum are sure to try the criminal law angle at some point.

What is needed is for an RK to demonstrate in court that Scumbag Parking cannot hold a relevant contract - quoting VCS/HMRC - and therefore cannot hold the RK liable for anything - and to get the case thrown out on that basis, before there's even any need to get into the stuff about inadequate signs, unlawful penalty charges etc. etc. Not binding admittedly, but if a PPC gets spanked once over this they are going to be exceedingly reluctant to try it again.

And if the PPC claims to be bringing the case as the landowner's agent then they will not only have to say so - thereby making the landowner the principal in the case, which they will not like one little bit (especially when they get hit with a counter-claim for harassment) - but they will also have to prove that they have the landowner's authority to bring the case, which will mean producing the contract between them and the landowner, which neither the landowner nor the PPC is going to like one little bit!

Welsh_Exile

Forget the new act for a minute, I think that if you deliberately lied about the identity of the driver you might well fall foul of the Fraud Act 2006.

Section 2 deals with Fraud by False Representation:-

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.

(4)A representation may be express or implied.

(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

I have bolded the bit I think is important. The question is what is the intent of someone giving false driver details, even if they believe the parking charge to have no legal basis? If it is to cause the PPC/debt collector to go on a wild goose chase after, say, some fictitious driver then that would necessarily cause them a loss.
There are so many other holes in the new act, the appeals procedure, contract law etc etc that I don't think it's worth playing this game.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

BASFORDLAD

Thanks if the original person wasn't going to pay anyway then is it really causing a loss?

But i think you have drawn on an important bit there

If you are right and Person A makes the statement then it would be themselves committing the offence rather then person B who becomes the *driver*

I think if this is the case then obviously this a dead duck but be good to get full clarification on it

ManxRed

They're not causing them a loss though, are they?

BASFORDLAD

ManxRed wrote: »

They're not causing them a loss though, are they?

This is where it gets to the nitty gritty

Ive asked on a legal forum run by some well know solicitor