Excel - Prove I'm the driver?

sportmonday

Hi

I'm about to write an appeal letter to the lovely people at Excel Parking when I came across this sentence contained within their latest correspondence to me.

"Please note that we are proceeding on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question unless you are able to prove the contrary."

I'm assuming that I'm under no obligation to prove that I'm not the driver and that their assumption is unfounded?

Many thanks!

pogofish

If you are in Scotland or Northern Ireland, then yes - a PPC can only pursue the driver and the RK has no obligation to name them.

In England and wales however, Keeper liability applies since POFA 2012, so you had better get yourself into the Newbies Sticky to see how to word a proper challenge/appeal and see them-off properly.

Post back here when you have the bones of it together for more advice.

The_Deep

A reasonable assumption that you were the driver would have to include the following elements to have any hope of success.

You were parked at or near your place of work or a bus/rail station during normal working hours.

No-one else is named on the insurance document.

You have indicated in an internet forum or anywhere else that you were the driver.

If you were parked at a multiple outlet shopper centre, cinema, restaurant, etc. they would have a mountain to climb.

If you were not the driver, and can prove it, then, not only have they a mountain to climb, they would be staring a counter claim in the face.

arabesque_101

Is there anything in the letter to suggest that Excel are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? If there is, then Excel are able to hold the keeper liable for the driver's action. If there is no such mention of POFA 2012, then Excel will not be successful in holding the keeper liable unless you, as keeper, tell Excel that you were driving.

Astronaughtwannabe

You could tell them that you're happy to prove you were not the the driver when they prove that their losses are a genuine pre-estimate.

HO87

arabesque_101 wrote: »

Is there anything in the letter to suggest that Excel are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? If there is, then Excel are able to hold the keeper liable for the driver's action. If there is no such mention of POFA 2012, then Excel will not be successful in holding the keeper liable unless you, as keeper, tell Excel that you were driving.

I would advise caution from a number of perspectives. Firstly, as far as non-POFA based action is concerned asserting that Excel will not be successful may encourage the uninitiated to assume that simply declining to name the driver is the only legal defence they need. That is most certainly not the case - as a good few people who were taken to the small claims pre-POFA discovered.

Aside from the statistic that suggests that a majority of drivers are also the registered keeper there is the principle that an honest man has nothing to hide and in a situation where a PCN has been issued to a vehicle and the owner then declines to name the driver what is a court to conclude - on the balance of probabilities?

This also ignores the fact that the judge would undoubtedly put the keeper on the spot and ask them who was driving and it would be a brave man indeed who refused to answer.

That is not to say that a keeper who was not the driver (and preferably not in the vehicle) and who has clear evidence that they were elsewhere cannot avail themselves of that defence. As with all PPC cases a defence in depth is always better. Single point defences are necessarily fragile in the small claims environment.

Secondly, suggesting that a simple allusion to POFA in their paperwork would enable Excel to invoke keeper liability is also misleading. There are many hoops through which they have to jump and experience suggests that Excel would struggle to show compliance with POFA (as would a majority of PPC's) and that is the very reason why they - and a number of others - are now reverting to pre-POFA action.

Furthermore, there is no requirement in Schedule 4 that POFA must be expressly mentioned. It is not an unreasonable conclusion that it might be but there is no requirement that it must.

sportmonday

Hi.
I've appealed to the IAS after I received a PCN for parking at the Peel Centre in Stockport. I heard absolutely nothing until I received a letter (I'd post a copy but I'm a new user...) saying my appeal had been denied - debt recovery or court action may follow. How do I stand now? Surely I have to be made aware that my appeal was unsuccessful?!
Should I just ignore any further correspondence until they threaten to take me to court?
Many thanks.

Redx

nothing else for it but to ignore further correspondence unless its an LBCCC or MCOL from Excel over the next 6 years (ignore the debt collectors)

this industry is not regulated, so nothing surprises me about the IAS etc, but you were unlikely to win anyway

if you think there is a governing body overseeing this c*wboy industry, think again !

Fight_the_good_fight

What were you not informed about,as everything is explained in the stickies thread

sportmonday

Fight_the_good_fight wrote: »

What were you not informed about,as everything is explained in the stickies thread

They didn't inform me that my appeal to the IAS had been unsuccessful. I pretty much knew it would be but I'd at least like a letter of rejection to add to the file!

Crabman

I've merged your thread with your initial thread