I am the keeper. Do I name the driver?

95Rollers

You are not in any way obliged. Especially not to a private company. 

The only time you are obliged to name a driver is in a police investigation. Although these guys call their attendants "officers" and talk like they are Judge, Jury & Executioner in their toxic letters - they are nobodies!

onthespotreporter

Umkomaas said:

If it is not compliant does it help us win? 

You can post up a redacted copy if you wish. Both sides please, leave any dates on it still showing. 

Here is the redacted copy. Thank you for taking a look.

Umkomaas

The NtK is not PoFA compliant. If you were definitely not the driver they cannot hang this on you. You'll need to go through all the motions until such time as a Judge finds for you or ESPEL discontinue. 

Fruitcake

I agree, the NTK is non PoFA compliant as it does not contain the mandatory wording required by the PoFA.


In your opening post you said,

"I denied liability and denied I was the driver. Here is the request from Gladstones “Thank you for your correspondence and we apologise for the delay in response. We note your comments and request that you send the details of the driver at the time of the contravention, if we do not receive this information our client reserves the right to pursue you as the registered keeper under the Protections of Freedoms Act. schedule 4. Please do this by 30/05/2022, without this you remain liable for the full outstanding sum.”"

This means that Gladstones lied to you. You were never liable for the charge, and therefore you cannot remain liable.

The driver can be held liable, but only if someone tells the claimant who it was. The keeper cannot be held liable. You need to seriously think whether you want to throw away a good defence point by naming the driver.

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

I agree, the NTK is non PoFA compliant as it does not contain the mandatory wording required by the PoFA.


In your opening post you said,

"I denied liability and denied I was the driver. Here is the request from Gladstones “Thank you for your correspondence and we apologise for the delay in response. We note your comments and request that you send the details of the driver at the time of the contravention, if we do not receive this information our client reserves the right to pursue you as the registered keeper under the Protections of Freedoms Act. schedule 4. Please do this by 30/05/2022, without this you remain liable for the full outstanding sum.”"

This means that Gladstones lied to you. You were never liable for the charge, and therefore you cannot remain liable.

The driver can be held liable, but only if someone tells the claimant who it was. The keeper cannot be held liable. You need to seriously think whether you want to throw away a good defence point by naming the driver.

Reply to Gs and tell them their client can't use the POFA because they issued a non-POFA NTK.

As such, now they know the keeper was not driving they must cease and desist with pestering the keeper. I am NOT liable and cannot be assumed to be the driver (see new DLUHC CoP) so don't reply pretending ESPEL can plough ahead anyway or that I have any obligation to name the driver.

None of that is true in law, so think carefully how you deal with this matter because I will report Gladstones to the SRA to be investigated if you carry on. Cease and desist.

onthespotreporter

Thank you all for your responses. That is brilliant. I can afford to pay, but any hint of bullying and I dig in. I won't name the driver and respond to Gladstones with the points you have all raised. Will let you know how it goes.