"Were you the driver?"

Johnthegrump

The Road Traffic Act 1988 s172 imposes a legal duty on the RK to divulge the identity of the driver (in certain circumstances).

No similar obligation was included in PoFA 2012. Sch 4.

But I do take your point, @nosferatu1001

nosferatu1001

In court, as a witness, you must answer truthfully. 

This has !!!!!! all to do with pofa. 

Johnthegrump

D_P_Dance said

Which, of course, opens another avenue for the claimant....common law breach of contract.

But surely this is usually the primary cause of action.  

 

Yes, I would agree that the cause of action is a breach of contract.

But, to action via common law, the claimant would have to be able to prove (balance of probabilities) the ID of the driver.

Redx

Johnthegrump said:

D_P_Dance said

Which, of course, opens another avenue for the claimant....common law breach of contract.

But surely this is usually the primary cause of action.  

 

Yes, I would agree that the cause of action is a breach of contract.

But, to action via common law, the claimant would have to be able to prove (balance of probabilities) the ID of the driver.

unless the claimant complied with POFA, in which case the driver I D is irrelevant

Johnthegrump

Largely so, although the driver ID could be expressly revealed, or perhaps strongly inferred from the evidence presented. There are plenty of threads here where the OP has 'scored an own goal' by revealing to the PPC that they (OP) were the driver at the relevant time.

But I fear we are digressing from the original question............

Coupon-mad

Johnthegrump said:

Hi all

If the judge asks that question (or similar), how would you reply?

Obviously it's best not to lie, but, from what I can see, it does have an impact on the hearing should the answer be "yes".

(It's a pity we can't plead the '5th') 

The Judge asked the question the other day in court when I was lay repping:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6223743/court-report-coastway-vets-predatory-ticketing-no-grace-period-ops-lose-at-brighton-court-again/p1

But because no PCN was left on the car (suspected ghost ticketing but not proved) neither the D nor his wife knew who had stopped there for 4 minutes as it's a local shopping parade they use a fair bit.     The Judge asked the D if he could recall who was driving, and the D simply said ''No, I can't, Sir''. Therefore, POFA came into play.

OPS didn't seem to realise that a 'pics all taken in 4 minutes flat' predatory PCN with no grace period allowed and 'N/A to N/A' shown as the period of parking, doesn't cut it as far as POFA compliance is concerned.  The inadequate signs assisted in the win.

Johnthegrump

Congrats on your victory, @Coupon-mad

D_P_Dance

But when it comes to dealing with a Judge, as I said above, there is only one risk-free option in not naming the driver. 

How is claiming temporary  amnesia a risk?

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

But when it comes to dealing with a Judge, as I said above, there is only one risk-free option in not naming the driver. 

How is claiming temporary  amnesia a risk?

That brings BoP into the picture, and with it the risk that the Judge might need to be convinced. 

nosferatu1001

The judge can make a finding of fact. Almost impossible to overturn later.