Park direct uk ltd refused transfer of liability

winnahwinnah2025

Hi guys I got a ticket from park direct uk ltd I gave them a nominated drivers name and servicable UK address which is in line with pofa 2012 they then asked me for nominated drivers copy and proof of driver licence and insurance to establish wether the nominated driver was genuinely driving and was insured to drive. This is clear breach of POFA 2012 IPC code of conduct and BPA code of conduct and this not a criminal offence for them to be asking me for this as if they are the law so they have refused transfer of liabilty and they have carried on demanding those details for me to provide or liability may remain with me the keeper which is definitely a lie so now I'm at the stage of appealing to the ias which I know is futile but my question is would I win in court if I take this all the way judging by how they refused to transfer and the way they forced me to be liable. I appreciate all the help 

Coupon-mad

Email a complaint to Park Direct's complaints email and don't try IAS.

Please show us a screenshot of their email or a quick (redacted) photo of their letter demanding unjustified data to transfer liability.

Car1980

Depends what you want the end game to be. In the unlikely event of a court claim who would be best to defend it?

If you did nothing as it stands, you would receive the claim and you would have a ready made defence that you aren't liable.

Yes, they could theoretically then sue the driver, but they would have gone down a snake and be at the start and have to send a Notice to Driver.

If you really want the driver to become responsible and absolve yourself of all liability you would need to reply with something like: 

By naming the driver of the vehicle above any obligations as keeper have been discharged and no more action is necessary on my part:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5 [are met]

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

Now you have actual knowledge of the driver identity (name and address), the conditions in paragraph 5 are no longer met, so the right to pursue the keeper is extinguished. 

You must now ERASE all details you hold for me under the GDPRs.

winnahwinnah2025

This is the email I recieved after transferring liability on their web page @Coupon-mad

winnahwinnah2025

Then they replied saying 

Good afternoon,

 

Thank you for your response.

 

While we understand your position, it is important to clarify that in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), we must ensure that any personal data provided to us is accurate and relevant for the purpose of resolving this matter. In the case of a transfer of liability, we request the nominated driver's driving license and insurance documents to verify that they were authorised to drive the vehicle. This is a standard requirement and our internal policy for validating the transfer of liability and ensuring compliance with our procedures.

 

As this is a parking charge on private land, the verification of the nominated driver's details is necessary for us to proceed with transferring the liability. If the requested documents are not provided, we may not be able to process the transfer, and the liability may remain with you.

We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter.

winnahwinnah2025

They replied 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Whilst we understand your concerns and wish to assist in resolving this matter, please be advised that in order to transfer liability, we require valid documentation confirming that the nominated individual was the driver at the time of the contravention.

 

As previously requested, we need a copy of the nominated driver’s valid driving licence and insurance documents, confirming they were authorised to use the vehicle on the date in question. This is a standard requirement in line with our internal policy and is necessary to ensure compliance with our procedures.

 

Additionally, please note that under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, liability for a parking charge rests with the registered keeper unless it can be demonstrated, through appropriate evidence, that another individual was responsible.

As we have not yet received the required supporting documentation, we are unable to transfer liability in this instance.

 

Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The_Slithy_Tove

Don't waste any more time with them. You have discharged your responsibility, end of. Ignore all the rubbish they now send, and only respond to a LBC or court claim. If they raise a claim against you, your defence is simple: they know who the driver was, therefore they have no claim against you as keeper under POFA. (If they chose not to chase the named driver, that's their problem.) Make sure you keep all correspondence for 6 years.

As for "This is a standard requirement in line with our internal policy and is necessary to ensure compliance with our procedures," their internal policy is of no concern to you, an external party. And it's bo****ks anyway. Additionally their claim that "under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, liability for a parking charge rests with the registered keeper unless it can be demonstrated, through appropriate evidence, that another individual was responsible" is the wrong way round. Liability rests with the driver first and foremost, and can only be transferred to the keeper if they don't know who the driver was, which they do. And the bit about through appropriate evidence is, again, bo****ks, and something they have simply invented.

winnahwinnah2025

Also is it ok for me to post what I've posted as it could pin point to them who I am ? 

The_Slithy_Tove

If they find this thread, it won't tell them anything they don't know already. 

Car1980

Good God. What a load of utter garbage. Are they in financial trouble because they really really want to ground you down so that you'll just pay up.

I'd send them one final reply, such as:

Dear Park Direct

We have reached an impasse. You either completely misunderstand the legislation, or you are so desperate for payment  that you are simply inventing fictitious obstacles. You have no such "responsibility" to any operator and the GDPRs make none of the requirements of you that you claim. Sadly for you, the Protection of Freedoms Act makes no allowances for your stated position - the requirements are literally in black and white and if you do not believe them that is 100% your problem.

Again, so that a record exists should you be mad enough to make a county court claim against a keeper who is absolved of any liability, take note of the following:

By naming the driver of the vehicle above any obligations as keeper have been discharged and no more action is necessary on my part:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5 [are met]

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

Now you have actual knowledge of the driver identity (name and address), the conditions in paragraph 5 are no longer met, so the right to pursue the keeper is extinguished. 

You must now ERASE all details you hold for me under the GDPRs.

No more correspondence will be entered in to and any further demands for payment from yourself or any debt collectors will be ignored.

By the way, their no parking contract has scuppered them anyway. See:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6608272/parkingeye-fine-18-minutes-parking-home-bargains-penrith#latest

Coupon-mad

Stop offering money.

Send this:

Dear Park Direct,

This is my final position. Stop being patronising and trying to put obstacles in the way of a POFA Schedule 4 transfer of liability.

Send a PCN to the driver as the law requires you to do. There is no law that allows liability to 'remain with me'.

Your stance is unreasonable and illegal and if you continue to pursue me despite the transfer of liability, I'll make a complaint to the DVLA and the ICO regarding abuse of my data by continuing to use it for a purpose that is now outside of the reason it was supplied.

I will also alert my MP, with instructions to raise this with the MHCLG and I will require my MP to assist me in reporting Park Direct UK to the Competition and Markets Authority ('CMA'), who - since April - have new powers under the DMCC Act.

Ask Derek at 'BPA Lawline' if you subscribe to that, or I suggest you seek alternative legal advice if you don't understand: the CMA can now fine companies involved in 'misleading conduct' up to 10% of your turnover.

Want to be the first of many of your ilk?

You have a week to remedy your actions and I appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter. If not, you can expect to hear from the above authorities in June.

 Yours faithfully