Parking in Mcdonalds

vxr8_2

I have decided to remove this post as i think the scummers often scan these kind forums and I dont wish to assist them in any way whatsoever

Umkomaas

I presume the PPC is MET?

What was the date of the parking 'contravention'?

The_Slithy_Tove

vxr8 wrote: »

May I have your thoughts please

Yes. You're making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Read the NEWBIES sticky thread and go on from there.

BTW, if you did get court papers addressed to you, and you ignored them, too, you would end up with a default judgement against you and possibly a CCJ. Not that Met (if it is they) ever do more than threats.

vxr8_2

I have decided to remove this post as i think the scummers often scan these kind forums and I dont wish to assist them in any way whatsoever

Redx

you seem to have missed the fact that under POFA2012 the RK is considered liable, which means the advice changed from oct 2012 , over 2.25 years ago now , in england and wales that is

read about another misguided person here

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/parkingeye-win-in-court-shooting-fish.html

The defendant's case, on the other hand, consisted of the single point he was not the driver. The car was owned by his company and was a pool car which could have been driven by any of 5 other people, none of whom had admitted to being the driver.

The judge explained kindly that although the defendant might think that a clever defence, parliament had fixed that loophole 2 years ago, and that was no longer a valid defence.

He explained ParkingEye had a right to levy charges, that the driver was not staying in the hotel, and that the driver was responsible for the charge. As no-one had come forward admitting to be the driver, the responsibility therefore fell on the keeper of the vehicle. The case was over in 5 minutes without the claimant needing to speak, and with only a few sentences from the defendant.

Prankster note. The defendant was lucky. Not being the driver has no hope of being a valid defence. Other judges may have ruled he behaved unreasonably in defending the claim, and so awarded higher costs.

a judge would just go on the balance of probabilities of who the RK actually is , or maybe on other paperwork like insurance documents etc

Umkomaas

Whether this will go to court depends much on who the PPC is.

I don't have the same amount of time on my hands as you do, but I'll ask one more time - who is the PPC - then we can give you a better idea if you'll have your 'day in court'.

vxr8_2

sorry guys met parking and debt recoveryplus

The_Slithy_Tove

Toothless.

Academic point: as for not having full name, surely the Notice To Keeper had a full name on it, as that is what they get from the DVLA.

Umkomaas

Ignore DRP for starters - they're powerless. Chances of MET taking you to court - very slim. Here's their record over the latest 18 months figures.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322893/british-parking-association.doc

Compare and contrast with CEL, ParkingEye, UKCPS and their ilk, where even with them, given their industrial scale of issuing PCNs, the chances of them taking anyone to court are relatively slim.

You're now going to have to either ride out the blizzard of debt collector letters, or write to DRP with a 'debt denied, refer back to client, cease and desist' or read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky 'So you think it's too late to appeal?' for further advice on procedures in that context.

vxr8_2

no the V5 only had an initial and my family name HONEST
along lines of


Mr. T. Jones
address........


and thats where the hurdle lays imo for them they surely cannot supply accurate info if they cannot identify the keeper
and whether its a slip up at dvla, only god knows but maybe this is an avnue..if we register our cars in our name using only your initials then full surname........theres no offence there in law its still registered.
Then if a letter arrives surely you would be within your rights to ask for more info to assist in identifying the driver at the time and they are at a loss because they can chase the R/K but who is the R/K if 2 people of the same initial live at the same address where the car was registered to,
they would need to issue 2 proceedings for one contractual breach and offence? surely thats not allowed? Or put their sleuths hat on. I do realise that it is the responsibilty of the R/K to supply details to police , but not to private companies under these conditions...because surely I can also say to the parking firms...that they should apply in writing to me enclosing a £25 fee for administration and one could ask them under a data protection arrangement (hopefully) and refuse contrary to DPA

Umkomaas

Yep, just go for it ..... and let us know how it all goes.

I just don't think we can help you much more with your hypothesising. But if it comes to fruition, give us details of the outcome so we can help anyone else who has a similar issue in the future.