Can the RK still name the driver after a lost POPLA appeal?

nosferatu1001

I would state that as there is nothing further to be gained you will note further communications from them ,,but will not respond further.
if they feel they can hold you liable despite the clear wording in pofa ... you expect them to file a claim with undue delay, as it appears that only a court can decide the matter. Note that should they attempt a claim, you sill file a counterclaim for not less than 900 for harassment, breach of dpa2018, etc 

BrownTrout

this is the kind of case which is actually quite interesting rather then run of the mill stuff you see,. i see so much boring stuff that it fries my brain , but this is a different angle

Beano456

Not much to report other than I’ve now received what looks like their standard template letter headed “Notice of pending legal action” saying it’s essential that payment is made within 7 days of letter (by 29-Jan-21) to avoid legal action and additional fees. They have added £20 admin costs, so that's something else I can add to the defence should they issue a claim.

nosferatu1001

Respond back, reiterating that their continued harassment of you is noted, and a careful record of your time spent dealing is being made (so, make a record!) 
If they are foolish enough to attempt a court claim, your counterclaim will also seek to pursue these costs under CPR27.14(2)(g) and on the indemnity basis. You suggest they seek legal advice, so they are aware of their liability should they continue. 

Beano456

I'll see if they react to this.

Dear Carflow Team (Conor Greely)

In reply to your recent letter dated 22-Jan-21 and headed “Notice of legal action”, you have been advised of my position in previous correspondence. Continuing to send threats of legal action, adding further unconscionable amounts, does not alter my position or the fact that you have no lawful right to continue to pursue me, the keeper, in relation to this PCN.

For the avoidance of any doubt, no payment will be forthcoming in the absence of a court ordering otherwise. Any legal proceedings you choose to instigate against me will be vigorously defended.

You have not addressed the contents of my previous email, setting out in detail the legal position as to why I, the keeper, cannot be held liable under the PoFA. To substantiate this, I also provided you a link to the article published in the BPA parking newsletter, written by Andrew Morgan from SCS Law, advising the correct legal procedure that BPA members should follow in adhering to Schedule 4 of the PoFA, where a keeper has provided driver details before legal proceedings have commenced (as in this case).

Given your company director’s senior position within both Carflow Ltd and the BPA, I find it outrageous that Conor Greely, in his role for the BPA, is content for the BPA to publish advice detailing the correct legal procedure that its members should follow to adhere to the PoFA. However, chooses to disregard that same correct published advice and the PoFA when it comes to dealing with motorists who find themselves a victim of his own parking outfit!  Please note that it is my intention to approach media outlets to highlight such behaviour.

You claim to be an ethical and fair parking company but the way your company has behaved in this matter, and the blatant contempt to follow correct procedure within the PoFA, does nothing to distinguish your company from any other bottom-feeding, rotten to the core, predatory parking company that motorists have all too often become accustomed to when dealing with the sharp practice of the private parking industry.

I have made my position perfectly clear and backed with irrefutable fact as to why you cannot hold me, the keeper, liable for this charge. You have elected to ignore that fact and instead continue to harass me with baseless demands for payment that have no legal basis in law.

If you want this matter resolved I suggest that you firstly desist with the harassment of sending letters that fail to address any of the core issues and are obviously intended to cause alarm and distress. Instead, I suggest you adopt a proactive approach by engaging in meaningful dialogue, which you could start by addressing the points that I have already raised.

Should you care to engage in a way forward, I invite you to rebut what I have previously stated and to put forward any valid legal argument that allows you to hold me, the keeper, liable under the PoFA for this charge. If you can do that then I will happily pay this charge (but please don’t try it on with para 9.2.f as we both know that simply isn’t the case - which the legal advice from SCS Law published in your own BPA newsletter confirms).

Should you not be prepared to engage by addressing the issues raised, there is nothing further to be gained and this will be my final communication. Any future correspondence you may send to me that fails to address the issues, save for court proceedings, will be noted but I will not respond further.

If you feel you can hold me liable despite the clear wording of PoFA, I expect you to file a claim with undue delay, as it appears that only a court can decide the matter. Please note that your continued harassment of me is noted, and a careful record of my time spent dealing with this matter is being made and a counterclaim to pursue these costs will be submitted under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and on the indemnity basis.

I trust this clarifies my position

KeithP

I would change with undue delay to without undue delay.

Jenni_D

Is it a counterclaim under CPR 27.14(2)(g) or is it costs for unreasonable behaviour? (I think that CPR relates to the latter).

Umkomaas

Please note that it is my intention to approach media outlets to highlight such behaviour.

Maybe 'juxtapositioning'?

Coupon-mad

I would never say that you are 'happy to pay the charge'.  That could be used against you later because it suggests your only defence is POFA if they do try a claim and it looks like you accept the validity of the alleged contract, the signs and everything else.

In fact you should be warning him about your intention to counterclaim for, say, £500 for abuse of your DVLA data, harassment, and aggressive and misleading business practices.  Another poster has been working on their counterclaim in a similar scenario this week where the rk was sent a claim even though (in that case) the rk had twice named and given the postal address for the driver.  The PPC misled him about this part of the POFA as well.  Misleading business practices are illegal.

nosferatu1001

A counter claim is NOT for the costs! Of course it isnt! A counterclaim would be for the DPA breach, harassment etc 
You would ALSO seek to recover your costs due to their wholly unreasonable behaviour in filing a claim with NO hope of success.