PCN from PPM at rental residence

square_coaster

Coupon-mad said:

Why do you think anyone has to sign a note?

Primarily because the keeper has already requested to transfer liability via email twice already, so I'm not sure what will be gained by doing the same thing again - what a nuisance!

The keeper has emailed them once again anyway, so hopefully they'll get the message. The keeper and I will be moving out of this address in a few months so I'm hoping they finally act on this to avoid the hassle of updating addresses and hoping they take note.

Coupon-mad

square_coaster said:

Coupon-mad said:

Why do you think anyone has to sign a note?

Primarily because the keeper has already requested to transfer liability via email twice already, so I'm not sure what will be gained by doing the same thing again - what a nuisance!

The keeper has emailed them once again anyway, so hopefully they'll get the message. The keeper and I will be moving out of this address in a few months so I'm hoping they finally act on this to avoid the hassle of updating addresses and hoping they take note.

The keeper must complain and get their MP on board, if they keep refusing.

square_coaster

Losing my hat here! Just received the following:

"As we have advised previously: 

We note your comments that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. It may be possible for us to transfer liability to the driver of the vehicle, provided that we receive a signed statement from yourself, providing the driver's full name, serviceable address and postcode. 

On receipt of this, we will put this to our Client for their consideration. Please be advised, should you fail to provide the requested statement, our Client is legally entitled to pursue you, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012."


For context, this was in response to the keeper emailing the following:

"Good Afternoon,

Consider this email a statement of confirmation for the driver details pertaining to the original emails. This does not admit liability on my behalf, nor their behalf:

xxx Name of driver

xxx Address

xxx

As a reminder, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), I (the registered keeper) am only required to identify the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the supposed parking contravention, which I have done, in email correspondence from the 27th September 2024. As the driver has been identified, your client can issue the fine directly to the driver, regardless of whether the I believe the driver is liable for the offense.

Signed

[Keeper's full name]"


The back and forth is seemingly endless, and this isn't even about the initial issue anymore, merely just trying to transfer to the driver rather than the keeper. Any thoughts for yet another response?

Coupon-mad

square_coaster said in 2024:

Background, 2024:

My partner owns the car we use, with me being an additional driver listed on the insurance. We live in an apartment block with underground parking for residents. 

During a holiday in March, our permit came unstuck from the windscreen, falling into the footwell. We arrived home to a Parking Charge Notice from Parking & Property Management.

We contested this charge, citing that we were residents, including proof of our council tax bill and showing our parking permit (that has been on display in the car since September).

This appeal was rejected, with the charge increasing from £60 to £100.

-----------------------------

BW Legal, 2025:

"Please be advised in order to request a transfer of liability to the driver of the vehicle, we require a signed statement by both yourself and the driver, confirming their liability for the contravention. "

-----------------------------

Coupon-mad said:

Oh yeah? ... nice try BW Legal!  We were not born yesterday!

I'd say the keeper must reply (NOT YOU) and say:

Dear Sirs

Your ref xxxxxxxxxx

Come on, you are meant to be professional lawyers. Stop trying to trick innocent people into 'confirming their liability for the contravention'.  You are having a laugh.

I have transferred liability in accordance with the POFA so stop lying to me and the driver that there is an imaginary cut off period.  The POFA allows transfers of liability right up until a court claim is issued and specifically states that an operator cannot hold a keeper liable once the driver's name and address is known.

I suggest you return the file to your client to reissue the PCN to the driver at the original rate (as required by the current Code of Practice) and allow the driver time to consider the notice and appeal.

-----------------------------

square_coaster said:

@Coupon-mad

Unfortunately this back and forth has continued - the keeper has responded twice now over the last 3 months with your last suggested reply, yet still they are left with this:

"As previously advised, we require a signed statement confirming the details of the driver on the date of contravention in order for a transfer of liability to be actioned.

On receipt of this, we will put this to our Client for their consideration. Please be advised, should you fail to provide the requested statement, our Client is legally entitled to pursue you, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. "

It doesn't seem like they're trying to get the driver to confirm liability here, but I can't be certain. What do you suppose?

Coupon-mad said:

Ignore them and let them sue the keeper for which the keeper would have a perfect defence.

Thanks for your ongoing support. My concern with this latter option is that the keeper wouldn't want to take it to court, so likely would fold if it got to that stage.

For the former signed statement, this could just be a written signed note attached to email correspondence to P&P?

-----------------------------

square_coaster said:

Coupon-mad said:

Why do you think anyone has to sign a note?

Primarily because the keeper has already requested to transfer liability via email twice already, so I'm not sure what will be gained by doing the same thing again - what a nuisance!

The keeper has emailed them once again anyway, so hopefully they'll get the message. The keeper and I will be moving out of this address in a few months so I'm hoping they finally act on this to avoid the hassle of updating addresses and hoping they take note.

Coupon-mad said:
The keeper must complain and get their MP on board, if they keep refusing.


----------------------------

square_coaster said:

Losing my hat here! Just received the following:

"As we have advised previously: 

We note your comments that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. It may be possible for us to transfer liability to the driver of the vehicle, provided that we receive a signed statement from yourself, providing the driver's full name, serviceable address and postcode. 

On receipt of this, we will put this to our Client for their consideration. Please be advised, should you fail to provide the requested statement, our Client is legally entitled to pursue you, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012."


For context, this was in response to the keeper emailing the following:

"Good Afternoon,

Consider this email a statement of confirmation for the driver details pertaining to the original emails. This does not admit liability on my behalf, nor their behalf:

xxx Name of driver

xxx Address

xxx

As a reminder, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), I (the registered keeper) am only required to identify the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the supposed parking contravention, which I have done, in email correspondence from the 27th September 2024. As the driver has been identified, your client can issue the fine directly to the driver, regardless of whether the I believe the driver is liable for the offense.

Signed

[Keeper's full name]"


The back and forth is seemingly endless, and this isn't even about the initial issue anymore, merely just trying to transfer to the driver rather than the keeper. Any thoughts for yet another response?

If the keeper really, really wants the case transferred to the driver (because the driver would be the stronger & more robust person to cope with simply defending a scam claim form) then play their game:

- Print out an A4 sheet of your email and sign & date it by hand then take a photo of it and email that as an attachment and tell them to shut the F up from being such rogue traders; 

- Send the same info to the DPO at the parking firm & tell them the keeper will counterclaim if they let their 'aggressive dog' agents sue the wrong person (registered keeper) who has clearly already jumped through hoops to transfer liability. And has done so.  Therefore the operator MUST either erase the keeper's data or at least, clearly mark it as a case where the driver is the only person who can be pursued. And now remove the file from debt recovery, rewind the case to the start and reissue the PCN to the driver to appeal. 

OR

If the keeper is the more robust person - STOP! There's a great counterclaim opportunity here for a couple of hundred quid Keep all this evidence and let them sue the wrong person (and counterclaim if the keeper wants, because for them to continue to process the keeper's data is illegal - in breach of the DPA 2018, UK GDPR 2018, the CPUTRs, the industry Code of Practice and DVLA KADOE and GIAA audit rules).

This case is an example of a claim (not a counterclaim but the legal argument is the same) that relied on Simon Clay v CEL and succeeded this month:
L6QZ0K0Q

Charlton vs UK Parking Control Ltd

17/04/2025

DDJ Ramsden at Canterbury Court

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6516522/claim-against-ukpc-for-their-unreasonable-behaviour-and-misuse-of-data/p1

In fact, the keeper could copy that approach and just issue a LBC then claim (needs homework because a claim or counterclaim must be pleaded based on law. You could pm that OP for tips, if interested). 

square_coaster

Amazing information once again, thank you. For the latter option, would it be necessary for the current claim to "play-out" against the keeper? Or would the counter-claim be issued immediately upon any further escalation of the current situation?

Coupon-mad

Counterclaims are added to defences, so you have to wait to be sued.

Whereas: 
Proactively filing a claim (like in the linked example) is done whenever the keeper wants to, after serving a LBC explaining the claim planned.