Giving drvier details

keydow11

Firstly, this is just a hypothetical question and I'm not suggesting I or anyone would/should do this... But when the Parking companies ask for the details of the driver, what's to stop a person (registered keeper) giving the address of a friend abroad or even a made-up address?

Are registered keepers liable to prove to parking operators a certain person was insured on their car and validate their correct address for them?

Fruitcake

Lying is never advocated here and could cause all sorts of problems.

If the driver's identity is not known then the keeper remains liable.

This subject has been done to death on here. The default position is not to name the driver except in very specific circumstances.
Giving a false driver's name or address is illegal and just plain daft. The scammers would try to contact the named driver, and if that fails they default liability back to the keeper, who by now will have missed appeal dates etcetera.

Redx

Lying can get the person who received a PCN into more trouble than the original charge

Google that case of the MP that gave her lodgers details, even though the lodger was in Russia at the time of the offence, lost her job, put in prison etc

It's being found out that has the consequences

Quentin

Were your inspiration the answer there would be no need for this forum (and no point in pofa/no private parking companies etc etc!!)

keydow11

haha, I did wonder what if there was a MASSIVE oversight. But that wasn't inspiration. I actually do have frequent family members/friends who come from abroad and I insure for a week or so at a time if they need my car....

Repercussions sound serious though.... which is probably what the parking operators rely on

Fruitcake

keydow11 wrote: »

haha, I did wonder what if there was a MASSIVE oversight. But that wasn't inspiration. I actually do have frequent family members/friends who come from abroad and I insure for a week or so at a time if they need my car....

Repercussions sound serious though.... which is probably what the parking operators rely on

If the person who really was driving the car lives overseas then of course that is one of the situations where the driver's identity should be revealed.
In such a case it would be imperative that the driver confirms in writing that they were driving and do live overseas. Posted from abroad or a copy of say a foreign driving licence (photo redacted) or utility bill emailed would be enough to satisfy the requirements of the PoFA that the driver's identity is known.

Johno100

Fruitcake wrote: »

Lying is never advocated here and could cause all sorts of problems.

If the driver's identity is not known then the keeper remains liable.

This subject has been done to death on here. The default position is not to name the driver except in very specific circumstances.
Giving a false driver's name or address is illegal and just plain daft. The scammers would try to contact the named driver, and if that fails they default liability back to the keeper, who by now will have missed appeal dates etcetera.

I agree with you about lying but if the keeper names the driver and provides an address for service I can't see anywhere in POFA that the parking company can revert/default back to the keeper if the driver ignores correspondence and/or the driver lives somewhere outside the jurisdiction of any potential court action in England or Wales

Fruitcake

Johno100 wrote: »

I agree with you about lying but if the keeper names the driver and provides an address for service I can't see anywhere in POFA that the parking company can revert/default back to the keeper if the driver ignores correspondence and/or the driver lives somewhere outside the jurisdiction of any potential court action in England or Wales

The key word in the PoFA is "known". If the driver fails to confirm they were indeed the driver, then the PPC can quite rightly say the driver's identity is "Not" known and therefore the keeper remains liable.

Otherwise anyone could do exactly what the OP has suggested, name any old Tom, Richard, or Harriet whether they really were the driver or not.
I have never known this to be tested in court, but it is precisely the sort of wording the scammers would want in the PoFA to alleviate precisely this situation.

The_Deep

I have never known this to be tested in court ...

Have not a couple of MPs got themselves in a mess by attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Fruitcake

The_Deep wrote: »

I have never known this to be tested in court ...

Have not a couple of MPs got themselves in a mess by attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Since we deal predominantly with PPCs and parking scammers, I was referring to the general subject matter of this forum.
I am happy to be corrected with regards to private parking charges at court.

Generally however, people only listen to me when I are wrong, well in my household anyway.

Johno100

Fruitcake wrote: »

The key word in the PoFA is "known". If the driver fails to confirm they were indeed the driver, then the PPC can quite rightly say the driver's identity is "Not" known and therefore the keeper remains liable.

But the drivers name and address is "known" to the PPC if it has been given to them by the registered keeper. Just because the named driver doesn't answer correspondence, stump up the monies demanded or lives abroad doesn't negate the fact that one of the conditions needed to enforce keeper liability, namely Section 5((1)(b) of Schedule 4 of POFA, is not met - they have been told the name and address of the driver.