question about keeper liability

romadi

my father has had a county court claim form come in from excel parking for a pcn from over 2 years ago- possibly parking in a residences carpark without paying and displaying. i dont know the circumstances of that pcn because it was so long ago but basically although he was the registered keeper, I owned the car and was pretty much the sole driver of that car (i have the financial documents to prove it was my car). Whenever he got a letter i told him to ignore it and that it was a scam. He cant deal with the county court claim. how can i deal with it instead?
should i send a statement saying that i was the main driver at the time?
any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Redx

if the keeper names the driver then they would start all over again and come after you instead, but you would lose the protection of POFA2012 (which they do not follow anyway)

being the owner is not relevant as currently the letters are going to him

just be aware of what you are getting into

bear in mind I am talking about england or wales only

but in this case its too late as he has a county court claim form , an MCOL , so he must deal with it and possibly appear in court, you can help him if you want to

its too late to name the driver, if that is what you are asking ?

Coupon-mad

should i send a statement saying that i was the main driver at the time?

You cannot steer this away from the keeper now. It is TOO LATE to name the driver. TOO LATE. But the good thing is, the keeper is NOT LIABLE because Excel do not use the proper wording under the POFA, on their postal PCN.

So, your Dad can defend this just like everyone else on here with a BW Legal claim (it will be from them, no doubt?). You can read dozens of cases here by searching 'BW Legal claim' and even more examples of a defence on pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

Read back at least 20 pages on pepipoo, to see and copy from all the most recent BW Legal defences. Only read CLAIM threads, not ones warbling on about the letters he has just (wrongly) ignored from that solicitor. He should have responded robustly. Never mind, it's defendable and he isn't liable.

Part of his defence should include the fact he was not the driver (but not name you). There are plenty of BW Legal defences written like that, by keepers who were not the driver, so copy from a few then show us what your Dad has put together. Or, what you have put together in Dad's name!

But first task - HE (not you) must complete the online 'Acknowledgement of Service' using the password on the front page of the claim form. Leave the defence blank, only do the AOS, which extends the time to submit a defence to 28 days from service of the claim form.

If he pays them over £230 he needs his head examining, BTW. Not only should he pay nothing, and likely have no hearing to face (because BW Legal are issuing these speculatively and the hearing fee will NOT be paid in all cases) but even if it went to a hearing and he managed to lose, he (you, in fact, I expect) would pay under £200, no CCJ, nothing.

Get reading of defences and do this all for him, if he can't cope - i.e. YOU do the work but of course, the Defendant MUST be him, so do it in his name.

Don't pay, don't throw the towel in. Weak people who panic and pay a silly amount over the odds, or who ignore court papers and get a default CCJ, are what they are after, you CAN do this and see it off, I'm sure.

romadi

that was a quick reply!
He wont be paying anything! it will be me who will take the abuse! ill have a read of all the specifics about bwlegal/excel and pofa and get back to you with any questions. thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Acknowledge the Service of the claim first. Read bargepole's post that I've linked under 'Small claim?' in the NEWBIES thread. He tells you what happens when.

romadi

a quick question. does the non compliance with POFA extend to PCNs that had been stuck on the windshield or only ANPR type camera issued tickets?

Coupon-mad

Both - read Schedule 4! It's about the wording & serving of the Notice to Keeper (first letter in the post) either way:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

You will need to understand that and it is pretty easy to read, all in bullet points. Paragraph 8 relates to windscreen PCN followed by NTK and para 9 relates to a postal NTK (ANPR or any random old 'camera' one with no PCN on the windscreen).

Umkomaas

One for Coupon-mad to comment on, please.

If the son was to sign a witness statement of truth confirming that he was the driver on the day, and this was presented as part of the paperwork to the court and BWL/Excel, then a Judge might ask Excel why they are pursuing the Dad.

Excel: 'Because he is the keeper, and we can pursue the keeper under PoFA'.
Judge: 'But we know now who the driver was on the day, supported by a statement of truth'.
Excel: 'But it's too late for the driver to be named under PoFA as we have now issued proceedings'.
Judge: 'Show me where in your paperwork you have the right to pursue this under PoFA'
Excel: 'Duh'.

nigelbb

Umkomaas wrote: »

One for Coupon-mad to comment on, please.

If the son was to sign a witness statement of truth confirming that he was the driver on the day, and this was presented as part of the paperwork to the court and BWL/Excel, then a Judge might ask Excel why they are pursuing the Dad.

Excel: 'Because he is the keeper, and we can pursue the keeper under PoFA'.
Judge: 'But we know now who the driver was on the day, supported by a statement of truth'.
Excel: 'But it's too late for the driver to be named under PoFA as we have now issued proceedings'.
Judge: 'Show me where in your paperwork you have the right to pursue this under PoFA'
Excel: 'Duh'.

I'm not CM but think this is a bad tactic as Excel would then be free to pursue the self-confessed driver & initiate a court case if they didn't pay up.

Umkomaas

nigelbb wrote: »

I'm not CM but think this is a bad tactic as Excel would then be free to pursue the self-confessed driver & initiate a court case if they didn't pay up.

Thanks Nigel. There seems some doubt as to whether the father is able to defend himself at court (he might even cave beforehand) which means he's likely to be slapped with costs in any case.

Divulging the driver (albeit now by a back door) would mean Excel having to start the entire process off again - and gives the son the opportunity to appeal (to POPLA possibly - subject to the precise date of the 'offence') or the time to properly develop a defence should Excel decide to start new proceedings through the county court.