postal PCN received after 14 days

Steven100

Thank you for your input gentlemen.

Herewith my draft reply. If you have any comments, please let me know before I post it later this afternoon:

Dear Sirs,
Your Ref: Parking Charge Notice xxxxxxxx
Thank you for your letter dated 27th June 2017 informing me that you intend to continue to pursue this PCN under the legal presumption that I was the driver of the vehicle, despite my continued assertions that I was not.
In your letter you cite the case of Elliot v Loake 1983 to support your position that the Registered Keeper may be presumed to be the driver.
The above case has already been dismissed numerous times as irrelevant case law in matters such as private parking charge disputes.
I draw your attention to the following points:
a) Elliot v Loake was a Criminal case and not a civil matter regarding a disputed invoice for parking. There existed a legal obligation upon the registered keeper to name the driver in criminal law. No such obligation exists in a civil dispute regarding a parking charge.

b) In the case of Elliot v Loake, the registered keeper had stated that nobody else had access to his car and that he had the only set of keys in his possession on the night of the incident. Whilst I am asserting that I have previously given permission to drive my car to many other people and indeed have more than one named driver on my insurance.

c) In the case of Elliot v Loake, there was also Forensic evidence that the appellant had lied during his defence.

d) In the case of Elliot v Loake, admissions and material facts were used to reasonably establish the keeper was the driver. No presumption was made.

e) In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Mrs. Lynzi Evans, The judge summarised as follows: Elliott v Loake was a different type of case entirely. It was a criminal case which meant that there was a legal obligation upon the keeper of the vehicle to give the name of the driver in criminal law. As this claim involved no criminal offence, then Elliott v Loake had no relevance to it. In the CPS v AJH Films case, the judge fully agreed with the Defendant's witness statement which correctly pointed out that this case involved employer/employee liability. As this claim was not a comparable situation, it also had no relevance to the claimant's case. The claim was subsequently struck out.


I am also writing to advise UK CPM that as it has not been relying or complying with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, UK CPM should immediately destroy and cease to use all and any of my personal data, as it is now clear it had not obtained my details legitimately and any further use of my personal data may result in me taking proceedings against UK CPM for breach of the Data Protection Act, 1998.


Yours Sincerely,

DoaM

Dear UK CPM,
After all the court claims lost by you and other parking companies, where Elliott v Loake is quoted and the judges rip you a new one ... you seriously think EvL (and CPS v AJH Films) is still a winner? Seriously?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and again yet expecting a different result.

Umkomaas

Like it, DoaM.

Steven100

DoaM wrote: »

Dear UK CPM,
After all the court claims lost by you and other parking companies, where Elliott v Loake is quoted and the judges rip you a new one ... you seriously think EvL (and CPS v AJH Films) is still a winner? Seriously?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and again yet expecting a different result.

Whilst this may be very true, I somehow suspect it would not be an appropriate response , that may end up under the judge's nose!