Park direct uk ltd refused transfer of liability

Kaizen2024

Coupon-mad said:

Kaizen2024 said:

PpcRscum2025 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Given the OP was happy to identify the driver, surely all this back and forth could have been avoided if the driver just submitted an appeal themself from the outset 🤷🏼‍♂️

What do you mean by OP and they refused to transfer liability to the driver so they've been going back and forth with me forcing me to take liability and to pay 

I don’t disagree that the operator should have written to the person identified (unless they had cause to believe the details were bogus, as some operators keep an eye out for known ‘avoidance’ address’) - I have not come across an operator asking for ID etc before.

Does not change the fact that you did not need to transfer liability, the driver could have simply made payment or appealed with no action from you required.

Made payment? In this case... with these CPUTRs breaches? Nobody in their right mind would!

With signs hidden by the ticketer moving the barrier? He can't lift a finger to affix a windscreen PCN but he can move a barrier to hide signs. Are the IPC happy that with this?

  

I haven’t read the detail so have no idea if the charge was issued correctly or not.

I am only advising on the process as the thread title lists a complaint about the refusal to transfer liability; not the actual charge.

winnahwinnah2025

Coupon-mad said:

PpcRscum2025 said:

Johnersh said:

...or indeed if the PPC got off their bony !!!!!! and asked the driver if s/he was driving - which they appear to have never done.

I'd not be faffing with signs or appeals, but send a "one and done" letter and then wait. 

Exactly, they have not even tried to communicate with driver they simply refused to transfer liability because I didn't send them nominated drivers copy and proof of licence and valid insurance... so would you say I have a good chance of winning if they take me to court and do you think they would try to take me court ?

You have 100% win if they try court. The barriers plus the refusal to transfer liability would see any judge rip them a new one.

PLEASE send the reply I wrote for you then report them to the CMA. We'll help.

I sent them what you wrote today not had a reply yet and I appreciate all the help !

Johnersh

@Kaizen2024 but PPCs have in the past refused to correspond with third parties who aren't the keeper. They can't have it both ways.

Looked at another way, why should the driver volunteer for a charge that the PPC currently show no sign of wanting to pursue against them?

Kaizen2024

Johnersh said:

@Kaizen2024 but PPCs have in the past refused to correspond with third parties who aren't the keeper. They can't have it both ways.

Looked at another way, why should the driver volunteer for a charge that the PPC currently show no sign of wanting to pursue against them?

Well, I see no reason why an operator would refuse to process an appeal from the driver 🤦🏻‍♂️ refusing to do so makes no sense; given that the driver is liable for the charge until keeper liability via POFA kicks when a claim is issued.

To answer your question, if I was the driver, I would not want the Keeper (highly likely to be a friend or family member), to have the hassle of dealing with it i.e the charge was incurred whilst I was responsible for the vehicle, so I should be the one that sorts it. 

kryten3000

Kaizen2024 said:

I don’t disagree that the operator should have written to the person identified (unless they had cause to believe the details were bogus, as some operators keep an eye out for known ‘avoidance’ address’) - I have not come across an operator asking for ID etc before.

By "avoidance address" are you referring to drivers who are not resident in England and Wales and therefore safe from any danger of a claim?  POFA just says an address for service, not that it be within any particular jurisdiction.  Perhaps this is the case here, I'm not sure the OP has made that clear.

Also, POFA is silent on the circumstances where a named driver denies liability.  Many companies state that they will pursue the keeper in these cases, but that's not written into the law.  Once a driver is identified, the keeper is no longer liable.

Neither situation is convenient for the parking company, but that's really not the keeper's problem is it?

Here we have a case where the keeper has offered the driver's details and Park Direct are trying to refuse to accept them.

This places Park Direct in a tricky position should the matter come before a judge.  The keeper can honestly state they were not the driver and that they provided all the information required to discharge their liability.  The detail is irrelevant as there's no cause of action against the keeper and Park Direct have no reason to continue processing the keeper's data, so they could end up facing a counter claim for harassment and breach of the DPA.

Car1980

There's a guy on here who thinks a private parking company that won't even adhere to the law and absolve the keeper from liability (as his is legal right) has a genuine appeals process 🤣🤣🤣

Or - and get this - tell the driver to just pay! 🤣🤣🤣

Classic.

NCC1701-A

Kaizen2024 said:

PpcRscum2025 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Given the OP was happy to identify the driver, surely all this back and forth could have been avoided if the driver just submitted an appeal themself from the outset 🤷🏼‍♂️

What do you mean by OP and they refused to transfer liability to the driver so they've been going back and forth with me forcing me to take liability and to pay 

 (unless they had cause to believe the details were bogus, as some operators keep an eye out for known ‘avoidance’ address’) 

To maintain a list of 'avoidance' addresses opens up all sorts of GPDR issues - care to name the operators who do this so I can check my personal details are not being illegally stored.

winnahwinnah2025

kryten3000 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

I don’t disagree that the operator should have written to the person identified (unless they had cause to believe the details were bogus, as some operators keep an eye out for known ‘avoidance’ address’) - I have not come across an operator asking for ID etc before.

By "avoidance address" are you referring to drivers who are not resident in England and Wales and therefore safe from any danger of a claim?  POFA just says an address for service, not that it be within any particular jurisdiction.  Perhaps this is the case here, I'm not sure the OP has made that clear.

Also, POFA is silent on the circumstances where a named driver denies liability.  Many companies state that they will pursue the keeper in these cases, but that's not written into the law.  Once a driver is identified, the keeper is no longer liable.

Neither situation is convenient for the parking company, but that's really not the keeper's problem is it?

Here we have a case where the keeper has offered the driver's details and Park Direct are trying to refuse to accept them.

This places Park Direct in a tricky position should the matter come before a judge.  The keeper can honestly state they were not the driver and that they provided all the information required to discharge their liability.  The detail is irrelevant as there's no cause of action against the keeper and Park Direct have no reason to continue processing the keeper's data, so they could end up facing a counter claim for harassment and breach of the DPA.

I gave them a name and servicable address in England not Wales not Scotland not USA they just simply refused because I did not provide them with nominated drivers proof and copy of licence and insurance details. I've never heard of this before like why would I have those documents and why would I share someone else's personal documents to a ppc on email they're not the law to be asking me for that they should send a NTD and ask him which they have not done and simply refused my rights and they have breached POFA 2012 and KADOE for carrying on in email going back and forth and demanding me for those documents or to pay up and they're reason to decline transfer is beacsue it's their "internal policy" to require those documents. Am I missing something here this don't seem right!?

kryten3000

NCC1701-A said:

Kaizen2024 said:

PpcRscum2025 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Given the OP was happy to identify the driver, surely all this back and forth could have been avoided if the driver just submitted an appeal themself from the outset 🤷🏼‍♂️

What do you mean by OP and they refused to transfer liability to the driver so they've been going back and forth with me forcing me to take liability and to pay 

 (unless they had cause to believe the details were bogus, as some operators keep an eye out for known ‘avoidance’ address’) 

To maintain a list of 'avoidance' addresses opens up all sorts of GPDR issues - care to name the operators who do this so I can check my personal details are not being illegally stored.

Don't forget the "repeat offenders" and hirer's details databases which are being used to try and circumvent POFA. It is no wonder that some motorists are using service addresses to avoid receiving speculative invoices.

For example https://registeredkeeper.co.uk/ offers to shred all parking tickets for £50 per month.

(This is not an endorsement and I doubt their claim that this service is 100% DVLA compliant)

Johnersh

Ow much????

So an entity that simply relies on being registered in Scotland and keeper not driver uses that as the answer to every PCN. You don't need to pay £600 per year for that.

It remains to be seen if PoFA will be extended to our Scottish and Norn Irish cousins with time, in which case the scheme falls apart at the seams.

For £300 you could buy a shelf company and then just pay an annual management fee.

But since this is a money saving forum, even that is overkill...