Parking charge from Cascade Financial Ltd

GingerBob_3

So the DVLA provided information to this trustworthy git, did they?

parker203

Castle wrote: »

Cascade Financial Ltd accounts are nearly 3 months overdue and Companies House have applied to have them struck off; though the process was suspended on 21st May. The chances of them going to court, (as a claimant), are very slim.

Thank you for your help

hoohoo

Forget the other car and whether it is fair or not. Landowners can ticket every third car or only green cars or cars with a 'B' in their registration if they want to.

The keeper should write back to the parking company something like this.

Dear Parking Company,

I am appealing as keeper. I was not the driver on the date the event occurred. Keeper liability does not apply in this case. Any further correspondence, apart from to cancel the charge, will therefore be treated as harassment.

Johno100

parker203 wrote: »

That's very true, but can they get my info from the DVLA if I'm a registered driver? If so could they come back with a claim of 'well it could be her'?

"Registered driver" ?? They can only get registered keeper details from the DVLA, as long as no-one tells them they'd need one of these to know who was driving.

GingerBob_3

Probably been suggested many times before, but what do these drongos do if you give the named driver as some geezer from Mexico, or Australia or whatever foreign country comes to mind?

pappa_golf

not a lot , however do not do anything that might incur a perjury charge "if" it went as far as court




or to put it bluntly , do not lower your standards to match there's

hoohoo

GingerBob wrote: »

Probably been suggested many times before, but what do these drongos do if you give the named driver as some geezer from Mexico, or Australia or whatever foreign country comes to mind?

Some of them write to the geezer, then as they do no exist, revert to pursuing the keeper when they get no reply.

GingerBob_3

hoohoo wrote: »

Some of them write to the geezer, then as they do no exist, revert to pursuing the keeper when they get no reply.

So are they the "rules" then? If they know who was driving but can't pursue him, they're then allowed to pursue the keeper?

pappa_golf

"rules"




what are those?

hoohoo

GingerBob wrote: »

So are they the "rules" then? If they know who was driving but can't pursue him, they're then allowed to pursue the keeper?

No, that is the situation if the keeper unwisely lies and gives a fake overseas driver address.

If the driver gives a true address, but the driver fails to respond then the parking company could go after the keeper on the basis they were lying. If they go to court, a judge would then have to decide.

For this reason, it is always best to get the driver to reply (if you can).

This has no bearing on your situation though. In your situation the keeper will truthfully state they were not the driver. The esteemed owners of the IPC, Messieurs Hinge and Bracket have decided that in cases like that they should persuade their clients to punish the keeper by dragging them to court. Therefore the more evidence your mother has that she was not the driver, the better.