Park direct uk ltd refused transfer of liability

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

If appealing or paying.

But they don't have to do either. It's a complete farce.

Kaizen2024

Read the context above

Coupon-mad

I've read the whole thread. 

This isn't a case where any right-thinking person has to 'appeal' (LOL, it's not a fine) and certainly not pay.

It's a fairly typical scam chancer 'PCN' made worse by two aggravating features that make this one worth evidencing to the MHCLG and CMA.

winnahwinnah2025

@Coupon-mad @kryten3000 @Car1980 @Le_Kirk thanks I have confidence now 🙏 1 question.... any worst case scenarios if I did go court 

Kaizen2024

Coupon-mad said:

I've read the whole thread. 

This isn't a case where any right-thinking person has to 'appeal' (LOL, it's not a fine) and certainly not pay.

It's a fairly typical scam chancer 'PCN' made worse by two aggravating features that make this one worth evidencing to the MHCLG and CMA.

The point I was trying to make was that the OP could have (potentially still could) saved themselves a lot of time and effort by simply asking the driver (given that they are not withholding their identity) to either make payment (I know that's not an option for you guys) or submit an appeal; thus releasing the Keeper from handing something that is not their problem.

The driver does not need a document in their name, much like a windscreen Parking Charge (a true NTD) does not encompass the driver's name and address. 

The only reason someone would not action the above would be if the driver's details were fictitious and one of the known 'avoidance schemes' were being utilised (an attempted fraud), as why would a friend or family member want to burden the Registered Keeper with the hassle for the sake of the equivalent of a meal for two?

You guys say that parking operators are unreasonable, this is a classic case of 'Pot Kettle Black' i,e, Operators would not need to be suspicious/cautious if motorists were honest, clear and transparent rather than trying to exploit perceived loopholes.

If the Parking Charge was issued without reasonable cause, the driver should own it and handle it themself. 

Coupon-mad

This PPC is blocking that and pretending that they can keep pursuing the keeper.

Which is a lie and therefore a misleading action = an offence under the CPUTRs. As was moving the barrier to cover up the sign.

Both are indefensible.

Kindly stop blaming the motorists here.

You guys say that parking operators are unreasonable

It's a lot worse than that!

What's currently going on - with bulk litigation paid for by the £70 add-on 'fee' fakery, especially in multi-PCN cases where it is a complete joke - is worse than clamping ever was (and no, you aren't getting that back).

And whilst I have never condoned 'avoidance schemes' (alternative service addresses for keepers) they are certainly not by any stretch of a lawyer's imagination 'attempted fraud'.

h2g2

Kaizen2024 said:

The point I was trying to make was that the OP could have (potentially still could) saved themselves a lot of time and effort by simply asking the driver (given that they are not withholding their identity) to either make payment (I know that's not an option for you guys) or submit an appeal ...

<SNIP>

The PPC could have (certainly still could) saved everyone a lot of time effort by simply asking the driver (given that they have a name and serviceable address) to either make a payment (I know that's what really matters for you guys) or submit an appeal...

Is it not the intention of POFA that the PPC do ask the driver now? It looks a lot like the PPC is only willing consider that act when it benefits them.

NCC1701-A

Kaizen2024 said:

Coupon-mad said:

I've read the whole thread. 

This isn't a case where any right-thinking person has to 'appeal' (LOL, it's not a fine) and certainly not pay.

It's a fairly typical scam chancer 'PCN' made worse by two aggravating features that make this one worth evidencing to the MHCLG and CMA.

The point I was trying to make was that the OP could have (potentially still could) saved themselves a lot of time and effort by simply asking the driver (given that they are not withholding their identity) to either make payment (I know that's not an option for you guys) or submit an appeal; thus releasing the Keeper from handing something that is not their problem.

. 

What a warped logic to apply, the op has no obligation, legal or moral, to chase on behalf of the PPC an alleged debt. This is wholly the PPC's problem and their refusal to follow the law (POFA) shows what a sham business they operate.

Johnersh

Keeper liability and indeed service to the address on the v5c suit PPCs as they can race through claims and ask for judgment.

The fact is that the law is more complex than that and imposes obligations, which can include locating the driver and searching for alternative addresses. Nevermind the PCN charge itself, the additional £70 which has likely been added by this point would go some way to covering the cost of a further letter & stamp.

One imagines that the PPC would pursue someone that volunteered to take on a PPC, true.

However, if you engage the legal process or threats of it, then it is not too much to expect the law to be properly represented and complied with.

1505grandad

"...............or submit an appeal; thus releasing the Keeper from handing something that is not their problem."

"Who can identify the driver to avoid liability

Anyone receiving a parking charge can avoid liability if they are not the driver. To do this they need to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver to the parking operator."

The above is from the ppssCoP page 41.

There is nothing about extra personal docs required (from page 1 of this thread):-

"nominated drivers copy and proof of driver licence and insurance to establish wether the nominated driver was genuinely driving and was insured to drive."

Also nothing about the above being overridden by the ppc's response to the correct process of transfer of liability as follows:-

"This is a standard requirement and our internal policy for validating the transfer of liability and ensuring compliance with our procedures."

 So why on earth should the driver have to submit an appeal (before) when the keeper has followed the procedure as per ppssCoP?. It is the ppc that is not following the ppssCoP.