Fighting pre-POPLA parking charge

Graeme_Murray

In April 2012, before POPLA was introduced, I was sent a parking CN. I was the keeper of the vehicle at the time, but NOT the driver. Forum advice at the time was the driver was responsible, not the keeper. Since the law changed in May 2012 and POPLA was introduced Forum advice now says the keeper is responsible. I am now being threatened with County Court action. 2 questions. As the alleged breach of contract was under a different set of rules, have I now (as keeper) become liable for the charge? Will I be taken to the County or the small claims court?

Herzlos

The rules at the time apply, if it was before October 2012, only the driver can be held liable.

They may try and "assume" the keeper was the driver under the "balance of probabilities", citing some criminal case (I can't remember the name, but it involves forensic evidence), but it's a totally invalid comparison, and the onus is still on them to prove that the keeper was the driver.

If you have proof that you weren't the driver, you'd win in court. If you can't remember, since this was presumably 4+ years ago, then you'd likely also win.

Have they sent you a letter before action (respond within 14 days or action will start) or a debt collectors letter (pay within 14 days or we'll recommend action)?

DoaM

#1 POPLA was formed after POFA (Protection of Freedoms Act, and specifically Schedule 4) was invoked October 1st 2012 (not May).

#2 Any claim arising prior to this date is still subject to the legislation in force at that time ... POFA is not retrospective.

Therefore any claim is defended on the basis of the keeper was not the driver, the keeper has no compulsion to identify the driver, the PPC must therefore pursue the driver - good luck.

Have you actually received a claim, or merely another letter saying May , Recommend etc?

Edit: Are you / were you at the time based in Scotland? Was the event in Scotland? (Question based solely on your forum name ... Murray is a Scottish name, and Graeme tends to be the Scottish spelling of that name).

DoaM

Herzlos wrote: »

They may try and "assume" the keeper was the driver under the "balance of probabilities", citing some criminal case (I can't remember the name, but it involves forensic evidence), but it's a totally invalid comparison, and the onus is still on them to prove that the keeper was the driver.

Elliot v Loake I think is the case.

Umkomaas

The law (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) was enacted in October 2012, so any PCN issued for a parking event before that date cannot hold the keeper liable. Even after that date, it is still the liability of the driver, but if the PPC can't determine who was driving they can pursue the keeper, provided they meet a number of strict requirements set out in PoFA.

You have not become liable for the charge, but it won't stop a PPC trying to lay it on you. They will try to throw the Elliott -v- Loake curveball in. Plenty of threads about this highly spurious approach.

Will you be taken to the County Court? Who knows, that is entirely in the hands of the PPC and their solicitors.

I presume this is a VCS/Excel/BW Legal case?

Ralph-y

as well as the above ...

may I please suggest that is that is your real name that you edit it

NOW

you may end up handing them the very thing that you do not want them to know...

Ralph:cool:

The_Deep

It is a punt. They have NO chance against a well prepared defence and if they were to take it to court they might find things become very expensive indeed.

Fruitcake

Ralph-y wrote: »

as well as the above ...

may I please suggest that is that is your real name that you edit it

NOW

you may end up handing them the very thing that you do not want them to know...

Ralph:cool:

Luckily the OP has stated they were not the driver, so even if the PPC picked up on the name they would only know who the keeper was, which they will have already confirmed with the DVLA.

However, it is never a good idea to use a real name on here, especially when dealing with parking scammers who read these for a.

Herzlos

DoaM wrote: »

Elliot v Loake I think is the case.

That's the one. I couldn't think of any case names beyond Arkell Vs Pressdam, but that's not of any use here :j

The_Deep

I disagree, imo Arkell v Pressdram is entirely apposite.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

I disagree, imo Arkell v Pressdram is entirely apposite.

Nice one, TD.