Conflicting advice on if the car owner is responsible for a PCN

KeithP

That's right.

pappa_golf

broughsupn wrote: »

Thank you you all for the help and Advice, much appreciated.

Reggie.

PS If unlucky I may be back[/QUOTE]

you will be ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

tincombe

On the other hand, if there is a valid ticket and if the notice related to its non-display and if, as is becoming common practice, the driver entered their registration number then you have evidence that payment was made about which the person who issued the notice was unaware and which you should provide to the PPC because ultimately if this ever got to court you would present this in evidence.

And would, whoever the PPC is, bother to take a case to court based only on non-display, even if this did form part of their conditions?

But if there isn't a ticket to show, let alone one with registration details??

nosferatu1001

Yes, they’ve taken people to court for non display.

tincombe

And were the respondents able to show that payment had been made?

And the outcomes were?

KeithP

tincombe wrote: »

And were the respondents able to show that payment had been made?

And the outcomes were?

See this letter from Gladstones.

Towards the bottom of the first page of that letter it says:

Pay & Display not displayed

My client doesn't dispute that you may have paid for parking, however it is your obligation pursuant to the contract (the sign) to ensure that the ticket is displayed. As evident from from the photographs you didn't display a ticket in accordance with the terms.

It is an integral part of the parking scheme that a valid ticket is displayed as otherwise the scheme would be unmanageable. If my client were to waive one charge on the basis put forward it would open the floodgates to the waiver of many more charges, making the parking management process that has been put in place entirely redundant.

This case has not yet appeared at court, but it clearly shows that at least one element of the private parking industry are prepared to 'try very hard' to get even more money when they actually agree that the motorist has already paid for parking.

tincombe

...that you may have paid..?

Can you prove that you did?

Not paying is one thing, not displaying is another. Issuing the parking notice could not be criticised, but this does not mean that a material breach has occurred, just that one might have. On receipt of evidence that this did not, then I am pretty certain that a court would not support any claim for the parking charge being claimed.

KeithP

tincombe wrote: »

Can you prove that you did?

What??

Are you asking me??

All I'm doing is answering your question:

And would, whoever the PPC is, bother to take a case to court based only on non-display, even if this did form part of their conditions?

Clearly they would.

I'll now leave you to your hypotheses.

broughsupn

I can provide the following proof.

Redx

if you are the keeper and not the driver , the only thing that matters for your own personal liability is if the PPC followed POFA2012 or not

if they did follow POFA2012 then you can be held liable for any contractual failure

if they failed POFA2012 then as keeper you have no liability , end of story

the latter is how lamilad beat Excel in court

the owner could be barclays bank , or first direct, or a hire company

POFA2012 does not mention "owner"

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

not sure where you got this idea about "ownership" from