Best way to transfer to driver?

zoonyx

NTK Received, appeal in progress at PPC, unlikely to reach court (which is almost a shame because I suspect it would be laughed out of the building).

However, RK is happy to appeal to PPC, and to IAS but less happy to goto court/ignore letters after IAS rejection. If the RK cannot be convinced, what is the best way to transfer to the driver, and what are the POFA consequences?

The driver is happy to go to court.

Just to add... The RK is a woman, but the images supplied by the PPC show a male driver. If PPC respond with the usual 'assumption' crap, even the terrible lot at IAS must surely see this is a rather glaring oversight, since at this stage the driver will not be identified? (Some clarification on RK liability would be helpful as I've read the newbie thread and elsewhere and I'm still not clear if the NTK meets POFA 2012!!)

The_Slithy_Tove

Dear PPC,

Ref: XXXXX

The driver of the vehicle to which the above referenced Parking Charge applies was:
<Name>
<Address>

This discharges any liability that I, as Registered Keeper, may have under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Do not contact me again.

Yours etc.

RK.

zoonyx

I'm assuming from that then that there is no major issue with doing so at any point before court papers?

ManxRed

Correct. Schedule 4 of PoFA states that they cannot pursue the keeper if they are in possession of knowledge of who the driver is prior to 'proceedings' beginning.

Any reasonable person would assume 'proceedings' to mean a court claim, although I notice a few PPCs seem to interpret that as all sorts of crap (usually to suit themselves).

zoonyx

That's good enough for me - many thanks to both for the swift reply.

Guys_Dad

What POFA doesn't say, however, is what happens if the driver denies it!

waamo

Check that the NTK is POFA compliant. If it isn't there may be no need to name the driver.

zoonyx

It's standard VCS, although it doesn't state how long The vehicle was 'parked' as its a waiting offence...

Umkomaas

VCS don't pursue under PoFA. The make the 'reasonable assumption' that the RK was the driver.

I understand the RK's reluctance to run with this, but if the photos unequivocally show a male in the driver's seat, VCS would have some difficulty making any 'reasonable assumption' that the (female) RK was the (male) driver.

Even the IAS would have some problem turning that appeal down.

Dr._Shoe

...But that would make the driver liable for up to six years should the appeal fail...?

Umkomaas

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

...But that would make the driver liable for up to six years should the appeal fail...?

VCS is an IPC member. Prospects of an appeal fail >80%. So someone will be potentially 'liable' for up to six years, (Ms) RK or (Mr) Driver.

Offer up the driver and it's clear; let them chase the RK on the 'reasonable assumption' she is the driver when photographic evidence, that the PPC themselves are submitting as proof, shows the driver to be male, won't need Jonathan de Waal in your corner to get that shot down in flames.

Ultimately it's the RK and OP to decide how to go forward, armed with the possible options to reach an informed decision. However, the likelihood of VCS pursuing in court (on current and past performance) is small, but certainly not unlikely.