Euro car parks

Arsenal7071

I’m finding this misleading do I now become the driver after denying knowledge of the driver?

Arsenal7071

my paragraph3
The Defendants vehicle visited the euro garage which is sited on Heathrow airport private land in search of an Ev charging installation the vehicle had a malfunction and needed to wait for breakdown assistance and this was the reason for the alleged overstay.
The Claimant is issuing PCNs on Non Relevant Land where airport bye-laws apply meaning the keeper cannot be held viable
TIA

LDast

"Denying knowledge of the driver" was a pretty silly thing to do. No one here has ever advised denying knowledge of the driver. The only advice given is to "DECLINE" to identify the driver. A very big difference.

If the Keeper appeals and declined to identify the driver, then in their defence they can simply state that the burden of proof in on the claimant to show that the person being pursued was the driver. An assumption or inference is not proof. VCS v Edward is the persuasive case law on this.

So, if you've denied knowledge of who the driver was, you had better have a convincing argument to back that "lack of knowledge". A careful read of the "statement of truth" is advised.

Arsenal7071

LDast Posts: 1,686 Forumite

Today at 3:45PM

"Denying knowledge of the driver" was a pretty silly thing to do. No one here has ever advised denying knowledge of the driver. The only advice given is to "DECLINE" to identify the driver. A very big difference.

If the Keeper appeals and declined to identify the driver, then in their defence they can simply state that the burden of proof in on the claimant to show that the person being pursued was the driver. An assumption or inference is not proof. VCS v Edward is the persuasive case law on this.

So, if you've denied knowledge of who the driver was, you had better have a convincing argument to back that "lack of knowledge". A careful read of the "statement of truth" is advised. 

________________________________

Apologies I’ve never denied knowledge of driver   only admitted to being the Keeper

Arsenal7071

1. The Defendants vehicle entered the garage on Heathrow airport private land in search of an EV charging installation during the time their the vehicle had a malfunction requiring breakdown assistance and this can be the only reason for the alleged overstay.The Defendant appealed to the Claimant and received no response from the Claimant . The Defendant e-mailed his appeal and hand delivered a copy to the Claimants Dorset Square address. The registered keeper of the vehicle who is the Defendent has declined the Claimants invitation to name the driver which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle and no assumptions can be drawn.The Defendant has had no responses from the Claimant only a bombardment of threatening mail from alleged Bailiff and recovery agents.

          This will be my paragraph 3 on my Defence I will be sending of tomorrow if anyone can see an issue with it can they get back 
          to me.   Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Remove the phrase 'private land' because it isn't, it's within the airport boundary I assume.

LDast

It's on the Southern Perimeter Road. It is outside of the airport fence but is land under statutory control.

Arsenal7071

Thanks for replies

Arsenal7071

This has arrived with a DQ N180 form attached is this the correct form as it arrived one day after dcb legal threatening template letter TIA

Gr1pr

Where did it come from. ?  Who sent it. ?  ( You will get two, from different sender's. )

Login to MCOL, check the claim history, see if they posted one and when. ?

Either way, you download the N180 and fill it in, you don't fill in any postal forms, from anybody