Parking Eye letter.

andy13

Not my letter but PE are stating the keeper is liable under POFA 2012 if the named driver ignores. Is that correct?

enfield_freddy

are you based in England/wales or Scotland?


a simple answer will result in the correct answer being given

andy13

England/Wales

hoohoo

Wake up at the back!

enfield_freddy

no where on the JPG or the OPs writing does it state the country , can you see it?

andy13

"You have identified someone who denies they were the driver at the time of the parking event or has not responded at the address given."

matttye

I don't know the answer but it sounds ridiculous, as if that were the case every driver of a hire car would just ignore correspondence.

jkdd77

andy13 wrote: »

Not my letter but PE are stating the keeper is liable under POFA 2012 if the named driver ignores. Is that correct?

No it isn't- if the RK, not being the driver themselves, has truthfully provided the name and address of the driver prior to court action, then there is no RK liability.

I would write back stating that:
1) you have already fulfilled your obligations under PoFA to discharge any potential liability, and;
2) you will not only vigorously defend any claim but also draw the attention of the judge to PE's grossly unreasonable behaviour both in lying in correspondence and pursuing a stranger to the alleged contract even after the driver was named, with a view to being awarded costs under CPR 27.14(g).

Coupon-mad

Has the driver's name and address been given then? Why have they not appealed and won at POPLA? PE are not to be messed with so be careful - they'll be looking to sue you. Albeit they have no case against a keeper who can prove the name and address of the driver was served.

andy13

It isn't my letter but I know the vehicle keeper. Yes the driver's name and address has been given to them. It's up to the driver if they want to ignore PE. Are they in breach of the BPA COP by insisting keeper liability after this?

Coupon-mad

IMHO the driver is a bit stupid/selfish to put the keeper at risk of having to explain themselves in court. They are not in breach of the CoP and if they were the BPA generally don't care (this is their biggest paying, 'flagship' AOS member).

The BPA would probably agree with PE even though the POFA does NOT allow a firm to pursue a keeper like this; there is no keeper liability once the driver is properly named.