care parking, roxburghe.

krissherbert

received this reply today...

Dear

Thanks for your e-mail, the contents of which are noted.

The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) did not change the situation regarding Contract Law which existed before the Act arrived – namely that a ‘parking contract’ existed between the operator and the driver, and the operator was (and still is) able to pursue the vehicle keeper to Court where they would seek to present a case to a Judge that on the balance on probabilities, the keeper and the driver are one and the same. What POFA did do was provide a route for the operator to follow which in effect put an end to the ‘I was not the driver …’ defence used by many keepers prior to its implementation – you will appreciate that such a defence is based on not offering a truthful position.

I offer this as nothing more than clarifying the position regarding POFA for you and as information.

May I wish you the very best with your case against Anchor / Care Parking.

As far as we are concerned the case is now closed and no further correspondence will be entered into.

Kind regards

Steve Clark
Head of Operational Services

bod1467

Is that not complete and utter bull?

Pre-POFA a PPC could only EVER pursue the driver. They could NEVER pursue the keeper on the premise that "(s)he might have really been the driver".

nigelbb

Apart from the odd exception like NCP who do own some of their car parks in the overwhelming majority of cases there is never a contract between the motorist and the PPC. In the case of retailer's free car parks there is not even a contract with the landowner as the motorist is given permission to use the parking as an incentive to shop in the retail premises.

krissherbert

in this case its even more confusing, there is the land owner, the building owner, the management company who have instructed the car parking agent.