Why shouldn't the registered keeper confirm who the driver was?

SouthLondonUser

This is just generic curiosity, but I cannot quite understand this point.

Let's say we are in England, and the registered keeper of a car has received a parking charge notice. Most guides, FAQs etc recommend the registered keeper should NOT confirm who the driver was. But why?

The company already knows who the registered keeper is, and has in fact sent them the parking charge notice.

The registered keeper is liable, unless they can prove someone else was driving.

Can the company charge the driver more than the keeper? Is the appeal process different?

I have done some searches on here (yes, I have looked at the FAQ), Pepipoo, the new ftla.uk website, but this point remains unclear to me.

Was this piece of advice relevant with older rules but no longer now? Or what am I missing?

I found this thread from 7 years ago which gives some explanations: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69906180#Comment_69906180 but I still don't quite understand how it would be relevant to the case I described.

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

The registered keeper is liable, unless they can prove someone else was driving.

No.  Massive assumption!

And often incorrect.

That's where you are going wrong.  You assumed that sending any old 'notice to keeper' makes a keeper liable.

Not true.  See the NTK pictures thread I started recently.  Shows both types.

KeithP

SouthLondonUser said:

I found this thread from 7 years ago which gives some explanations: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69906180#Comment_69906180 but I still don't quite understand how it would be relevant to the case I described.

That thread you mention explains it very well.

Particularly this bit...

POFA allows them to go after the Keeper if they don't know who the driver was, so they now have someone to take to court if necessary. However, there are a few hurdles they must jump in order to do this:

• The incident must have happened in England or Wales, as POFA does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland

• The Keeper must also be in England or Wales, as they can't take a resident of Scotland to court in England without a massive amount of legal footwork which would be too expensive/difficult for them

• ALL the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA must be met, particularly the serving of the correct notices (Sec 7-9) with exactly the right information in them. This is the bit most PPCs don't get right most of the time, thus preventing them from holding the keeper liable.

As @The_Slithy_Tove wrote, It's that third bullet point that many parking companies struggle with, and if they don't get that exactly right, there is no way that the keeper becomes liable for the driver's actions/inactions.

SouthLondonUser

Sorry but I still don't follow.

You mention many companies struggle with the 3rd bullet point, ie with complying with all the requirements of schedule 4 of the POFA.

But what does it mean in practice? The thread provides no examples.

Do the companies have to do more things / more difficult things when addressing the keeper and not the driver?

So is there a greater chance they will make mistakes when addressing the keeper rather than the driver?

Are there some mistakes which allow the companies to  hold the driver liable, but not the keeper?

Can you give one or two examples of cases when it would be best not to name the driver, i.e. how naming the driver could result in a different outcome?

KeithP

SouthLondonUser said:

Sorry but I still don't follow.

You mention many companies struggle with the 3rd bullet point, ie with complying with all the requirements of schedule 4 of the POFA.

But what does it mean in practice? The thread provides no examples.

Do the companies have to do more things / more difficult things when addressing the keeper and not the driver?

So is there a greater chance they will make mistakes when addressing the keeper rather than the driver?

Are there some mistakes which allow the companies to  hold the driver liable, but not the keeper?

Can you give one or two examples of cases when it would be best not to name the driver, i.e. how naming the driver could result in a different outcome?

Certainly can give examples when it is best not to name the driver.

1. if the parking event happened in an airport, any driver's liability cannot be transferred to a keeper.
2. if the parking event happened on a London Underground Station car park then any driver's liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.
3. If the parking company has failed to adhere to the strict rules defined in POFA then any driver's liability cannot be transferred to the keeper. And there are many ways that the parking company can fail on that point - read Schedule 4 of POFA for details.

In all those examples, the 'different outcome' is that the Claimant has raised a Claim against the wrong person, so quite obviously , that 'wrong person' is not liable for the alleged transgression.

But why this persistence with 'theory'?
Do you have a parking issue that you need help with finding a resolution?
If so, tell us about it.

SouthLondonUser

Thank you, that's  very useful.

A person I was talking to may have a parking issue. I told them the usual advice is not to confirm who the driver was, but I couldn't elaborate why.

I'll point them here if they decide to challenge.

Thanks again!

KeithP

Please keep in mind that the list I gave earlier is not a complete list. It is just a few examples - as asked for.

Perhaps the general rule could be that the 'victim' should only disclose driver's details if he/she is sure that the Claimant can transfer liability to the keeper and a driver's perspective may be easier to argue than one of a keeper.

Coupon-mad

In short, we advise this because people can't tell the difference between the two types of NTK.

POFA and non-POFA ones are both common.

Wanna compare their NTK to images of POFA and non-PoFA wording?

Look at the NTK images thread I started recently. Find out for yourself if this is a POFA one or not. Then you know if admitting to driving matters in this case.