Registered Keeper named the Driver

beamerguy

dekat wrote: »

5. The appellant's vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit and therefore became liable for a Parking Charge Notice as per the displayed Terms and Conditions.

Regardless, VCS said "this is not a parking charge" ???

That was your first point of contact with VCS so you have every reason to assume that "this is not a parking charge" was/is correct

Difficult to understand how this scammers mind works.

Maybe VCS could explain to a judge what "this is not a parking charge" means ? It might help a court to understand this twisted mentality

Fruitcake

My take on this.

The "This is not a parking charge" is not a NTD because the DVLA say so. Since it is not a NTD then any discrepancy between it and the NTK is irrelevant.
It would take a judge to decide if the DVLA are incorrect and the "This is not a parking charge" is indeed a NTD.

A person was named as driver but has denied this.

The PoFA refers to the identity of the driver being known. Since the person named as the driver has said it wasn't them, then the driver's identity is not known (unless there is some evidence to the contrary).

Consequently the liability reverts to the keeper as long as the scammers have met the requirements of keeper liability.

So, in my humble opinion the OP will have to defend this as keeper.

I'm not suggesting any of the above is right or fair, I'm simply playing devil's advocate.

[Deleted User]

I'm sure others may disagree....but no-one can show me the bit where it says how liability is RE-established on an RK who has named the driver...

@computersaysno On an objective analysis, this device wholly on your interpretation, doesn't it? PoFA requires a name and service address of the driver. If you provide false details/an address which isn't good for service, then I might suggest that liability isn't transferred at all.

Alternatively, if the claim gets to a hearing the PPC may be able to prove that the nominated "fall guy" isn't the driver. Then you're in court, seeking to defend a case with more than a whiff of mendacity about you. Not a great position to be in.

You might be right that there are no cases on the point, but be aware that correlation is not causation. You not being able to trace cases, could simply mean people have settled without a hearing (to avoid cists crucifixion) or even that you've not read enough case transcripts...

[Deleted User]

IF the driver refuses to confirm it is them, I suspect (as @fruitcake appears to suggest) that the PPC will embark on a claim against the RK as they haven't been successful against the driver.

Any issued claim could, of course, be fully defended. You may need a witness statement from the driver to assist if it gets that far.

You would of course presumably want to point out at every stage before then that you had discharged your obligation in law (which is to provide valid name and address only)

Computersaysno

Once a keeper has named someone else as the driver they have fulfilled their pofa 2012 obligations to remove them from keeper liability.
For a scumco to try it on again with them they would need to
1. Have someone with enough intelligence to be bothered
2. Prove the named driver wasn't the driver
3.Find the named driver
4. Get the named driver to deny being the driver
if its a made up name at a dross-house address the scumco won't even get out of the starting block.


As I say, empirically speaking, dozens of tickets disposed of and no recriminations....

Computersaysno

Someone I know is currently paying the following game......
RK named someone [ND1] at an address she has access to
RK then gets the new PCN that is sent to ND1 and sends it back to scumco naming someone else as driver [ND2] at same address
RK then gets the new PCN that is sent to ND2 and sends it back to scumco naming someone else as driver [ND3] at same address
Repeat ad infinitum...


I'm not sure what ND number she is up to....will try to find out!!!

Fruitcake

If it went to court it would come down to the judge's interpretation of the PoFA.

There is nothing in the PoFA about the keeper's obligations being fulfilled by naming someone as driver, it only mentions whether the driver's identity is known.
As I said before, the judge could say that if the person named as the driver says it wasn't them, then the driver's identity is not known, therefore the keeper is liable.

The_Deep

'This is Not A Parking Charge' is highly misleading especially
when you turn this red piece of paper over and you are then directed to a payment site.

Would this not be of interest to Trading Standards?

pysspd

When I asked Trading Standards to investigate these notices I was told it was too difficult to prosecute (below is the response I got), but that is not to suggest that more complaints to them might spur them into action.

'We can prosecute for offences committed in Sheffield but the evidential bar for a successful prosecution for a misleading action is so high that cases tend to be for false rather than misleading statements.

Civil Parking Companies (CPC’s) are actively aided and abetted by Central Authorities (DVLA etc.) and their activities are largely unregulated and will continue to be so until legislation is introduced to control them in such a way to minimise any significant consumer detriment. Television programmes, letters to MP's, questions in the House of Commons have all failed to produce any effective measures but one requirement now forces the registered keeper to disclose to a CPC the name of the person who parked the vehicle. At a stroke the Government has given these companies an official status that they are not worthy of and another tool in their debt recovery armoury.'

Castle

pysspd wrote: »

Civil Parking Companies (CPC’s) are actively aided and abetted by Central Authorities (DVLA etc.) and their activities are largely unregulated and will continue to be so until legislation is introduced to control them in such a way to minimise any significant consumer detriment. Television programmes, letters to MP's, questions in the House of Commons have all failed to produce any effective measures but one requirement now forces the registered keeper to disclose to a CPC the name of the person who parked the vehicle. At a stroke the Government has given these companies an official status that they are not worthy of and another tool in their debt recovery armoury.'

If they are referring to POFA, then it doesn't; it only invites the Keeper to disclose the driver and of course the RK may not be the keeper at the time; (hire/lease companies for example).