I have a parking fine but not my vehicle

Fruitcake

You now need to go back and make the request to the DVLA and all the complaints I suggested in my previous post, as well as completing the AoS and preparing to defend this vexatious claim.
Do get your MP involved as well, but it is most important that you get the landowner to understand this was neither you nor your vehicle, and that they are liable for their agent's breach of the DPA/GDPR, and jointly liable for any costs that will be awarded to you by the judge for unreasonable behaviour.

MikeJXE

I'm not at all clued up in these situations but I am bewildered 

It's not his car as confirmed by DVLA so why does he have to go through all this palava? 

What happened to innocent until proved guilty 

How could the parking firm hope to acheive a win ? 

KeithP

MikeJXE said:

How could the parking firm hope to acheive a win ? 

Simply by the inaction of the Defendant.

If the named Defendant does nothing, a Judgment by Default will be found in favour of the Claimant.

Half_way

MikeJXE said:

I'm not at all clued up in these situations but I am bewildered 

It's not his car as confirmed by DVLA so why does he have to go through all this palava? 

What happened to innocent until proved guilty 

How could the parking firm hope to acheive a win ? 

If you stick around long enough the bewilderment will soon change.

 Why go through all this palava? the private parkig industry is completly un regulated and a law unto its self the industry makes up its own rules to suit itself

What happened to innocent until proved guilty ? still stands in terms of criminal cases, however if you are acused then you may need to fight your corner. With private companys they can dress something up, say you owe them money and take you to court if you dont fight back - or even turn up they can get a default judgment against you and then yu have a whole other fight on your hands - for example I could say that by reading this badly typed reply you agree to pay me £100 , if i have your name and address i could take you to court over this and if you dont fight back, or respond i could get a default judgement . Stuff and nonsense of course but parking companies will also try and use complex arguments combined with threats and bullying

How could the parking firm hope to acheive a win ?   thye dont care, most of these claims are automated by the pakrig industry, enough people pay up long before it goes to court to make using the courts as a threat worthwhile .

As for this case, plan A, even at the court stage drag the landowner in if possible , peabody trust?

troublemaker22

Just to be clear, the correspondence you've received is not a "letter from a parking services company".  It's a claim form from the Court telling you that a company named Met Parking Services Ltd has sued you and, unless you file the necessary response(s) within the relevant time limits, a judgment can be entered against you in default.  

I agree with nearly all the advice you've received so far. Where I would respectfully disagree (and there is room for reasonable minds to differ) is on the best way for you to respond.

If you are absolutely sure that you have never driven the vehicle in question, been its registered keeper or hired it, I would propose a different approach in responding to it.  If I were you I wouldn't bother with an acknowledgment of service (but no harm if you've already filed one).  I would file the following simple defence and I would do it online via the MCOL website using the claim reference and password in the claim form. Sometimes less is more, and I think this case justifies a short simple defence that can easily fit in the space allowed by the MCOL online portal which will add the necessary declaration of truth.  The court will serve the defence on the Claimant's solicitors for you, so you don't need to worry about it getting to them on time so long as you file on time via MCOL.  Just light the blue touch paper and when the time comes you can file an equally simple witness statement.

Defence

1.  The Defendant denies the Claim in its entirety.

2. The Defendant has never driven the vehicle mentioned in the Particulars of Claim and accordingly is not liable as the driver of such vehicle as alleged in paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim.

3 The Defendant has never been the keeper of such vehicle and accordingly is not liable as the keeper of such vehicle as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim.

4.    In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

a.    standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

b.    a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

Coupon-mad

Yes, I agree.  This is different from other cases and the above poster is in the BMPA group and knows what he's talking about.

Fruitcake

Whilst I agree that this is different to the normal cases we see here, and I think troublemaker22's advice is most excellent, I think it would still be worth doing the AoS anyway to give the OP a little more time to make complaints and possibly even get a response from the DVLA before filing the suggested simplified defence.

I do wonder however whether appeal case of VCS v Ian Edward should also be included. Even though it appears that the OP was not even the keeper, there should still be no assumption that the defendant was the driver.

JerryJ64

If the OP has never been the registered keeper of the vehicle, the question of where their details and association to the vehicle were obtained from? The PPC and DCB Legal must show the connection they have made between the defendant and the vehicle.

An SAR to both the PPC and DCB Legal should hopefully elicit some evidence.

Surely, even with the simple defence advised above, the defendant should be requesting strict proof of their claim that the defendant has any connection to the vehicle, either as driver or keeper.

Coupon-mad

I don't think a DVLA Complaint has legs because what has happened is a similar name soft trace assumption.

The litigator has served the wrong person having got the data from a CRA and assumed it's the same person.  Not the DVLA's issue.

troublemaker22

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think a DVLA Complaint has legs because what has happened is s similar name soft trace assumption.

The litigator has served the wrong person having got the data from a CRA and assumed it's the same person.  Not the DVLA's issue.

Coupon_Mad is spot on as usual.  It's highly unlikely that the bad guys got OP's address from the DVLA (but by all means check). 

As to other points that have been made, as I said reasonable minds can differ, but I would keep it really simple at the defence stage - never drove it, was never its registered keeper - arguments about burdens of proof and citing cases can come later at the witness statement/skeleton argument stage, if the case gets that far.

I don't oppose adding some optional decoration about "strict proof" but I don't think it adds anything legally in this case.