Clarification of Newbie Thread

Gene_Crewbar

Gr1pr said:

Its not for me to say because she currently has multiple choices,  so must decide which path to follow,  before anyone can give the correct steps   ( we shall have to agree to disagree   )

There is no correct way to name me as driver? 

Gr1pr

Gene_Crewbar said:

Gr1pr said:

Its not for me to say because she currently has multiple choices,  so must decide which path to follow,  before anyone can give the correct steps   ( we shall have to agree to disagree   )

There is no correct way to name me as driver? 

There is,  she would email the private parking company,  naming the driver, giving the drivers name and address and any pcn reference number, plus the VRM details too,  exercising her legal right under POFA2012,  and also CC DCB Legal as well

The parking company would then write to you as the named driver,  you then deal with the fallout as a driver,  first person witness,  probably the only witness 

But

I would think that your partner has no legal liability under English law

Brie

The logic behind not naming you is this (I believe).  The parking company had no legal right to think that her car driver had entered into a contract with them so there is no reason they should have sent her a PCN and so no reason for her to name the driver. 

Realistically if she doesn't want to deal with anything you could, on her behalf, handle all the correspondence but still not naming the driver.  And realistically the place to start might be going back to the source and asking the landowner to get the PCN pulled.  Might be difficult after all this time.  

As for using Yankeeisms instead of the King's English......well Canadians have always been caught between a rock and a hard place.  Now more than ever!!

Coupon-mad

Gene_Crewbar said:

Gr1pr said:

Its not for me to say because she currently has multiple choices,  so must decide which path to follow,  before anyone can give the correct steps   ( we shall have to agree to disagree   )

There is no correct way to name me as driver? 

Why on earth would she do that, given that Smart never used the POFA keeper liability law. Their choice! This gives HER a perfect defence.

That'll be straight in the bin if she names you!

If you both want to make a difference to stop this utter scammery in future:

Stick around in August to take part in the Government's Public Consultation. We have an important thread about that and we need ALL Defendants to respond to the questions to shape the regulation of this rogue industry.

Please come back in a couple of weeks. Bookmark the thread on the Public Consultation. Go read it now, please.

Gene_Crewbar

Gr1pr said:

Gene_Crewbar said:

Gr1pr said:

Its not for me to say because she currently has multiple choices,  so must decide which path to follow,  before anyone can give the correct steps   ( we shall have to agree to disagree   )

There is no correct way to name me as driver? 

There is,  she would email the private parking company,  naming the driver, giving the drivers name and address and any pcn reference number, plus the VRM details too,  exercising her legal right under POFA2012,  and also CC DCB Legal as well

The parking company would then write to you as the named driver,  you then deal with the fallout as a driver,  first person witness,  probably the only witness 

But

I would think that your partner has no legal liability under English law

Presuming my partner would like to defend this as non-driving keeper, she could send the LoC template letter with relevant details included in the correct places.

I am still a little mystified about how POFA 2012 applies in this case and on what basis it could be assumed that ParkingEye did not invoke it, since we do not have any correspondence they may have sent to the old address. 

However, if I understand what I’ve read about POFA in the Newbie thread, she could include with the template a defence written along the following lines: “I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver (see VCS v Edward, 2023). As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable conduct”

Appreciate your time. 

Gene_Crewbar

Coupon-mad said:

Gene_Crewbar said:

Gr1pr said:

Its not for me to say because she currently has multiple choices,  so must decide which path to follow,  before anyone can give the correct steps   ( we shall have to agree to disagree   )

There is no correct way to name me as driver? 

Why on earth would she do that, given that Smart never used the POFA keeper liability law. Their choice! This gives HER a perfect defence.

That'll be straight in the bin if she names you!

If you both want to make a difference to stop this utter scammery in future:

Stick around in August to take part in the Government's Public Consultation. We have an important thread about that and we need ALL Defendants to respond to the questions to shape the regulation of this rogue industry.

Please come back in a couple of weeks. Bookmark the thread on the Public Consultation. Go read it now, please.

On what basis can we assume they didn’t use the keeper liability law? 

I will have a look at the other thread. I would be very happy to participate in the Consultation. This parking thing is a racket.

Umkomaas

I am still a little mystified about how POFA 2012 applies in this case and on what basis it could be assumed that ParkingEye did not invoke it, since we do not have any correspondence they may have sent to the old address. 

Since when has ParkingEye come into this?

Gr1pr

Gene_Crewbar said:

Gr1pr said:

Gene_Crewbar said:

Gr1pr said:

Its not for me to say because she currently has multiple choices,  so must decide which path to follow,  before anyone can give the correct steps   ( we shall have to agree to disagree   )

There is no correct way to name me as driver? 

There is,  she would email the private parking company,  naming the driver, giving the drivers name and address and any pcn reference number, plus the VRM details too,  exercising her legal right under POFA2012,  and also CC DCB Legal as well

The parking company would then write to you as the named driver,  you then deal with the fallout as a driver,  first person witness,  probably the only witness 

But

I would think that your partner has no legal liability under English law

Presuming my partner would like to defend this as non-driving keeper, she could send the LoC template letter with relevant details included in the correct places.

However, if I understand what I’ve read about POFA in the Newbie thread, she could include with the template a defence written along the following lines: 

“I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver (see VCS v Edward, 2023). As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable conduct”


I am still a little mystified about how POFA 2012 applies in this case and on what basis it could be assumed that ParkingEye Smart Parking  did not invoke it, since we do not have any correspondence they may have sent to the old address. 

Yes she emails that LoC response and adds the extra addition you mentioned to it 

Smart Parking are renowned for not bothering with Pofa2012 compliance until quite recently,  this year, so definitely not in 2021 , ergo they are unable to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper 

Gene_Crewbar

Umkomaas said:

I am still a little mystified about how POFA 2012 applies in this case and on what basis it could be assumed that ParkingEye did not invoke it, since we do not have any correspondence they may have sent to the old address. 

Since when has ParkingEye come into this?

Cripes, you’re right. It’s been a loooooong day. 

Gene_Crewbar

Gr1pr said:

Gene_Crewbar said:

Gr1pr said:

Gene_Crewbar said:

Gr1pr said:

Its not for me to say because she currently has multiple choices,  so must decide which path to follow,  before anyone can give the correct steps   ( we shall have to agree to disagree   )

There is no correct way to name me as driver? 

There is,  she would email the private parking company,  naming the driver, giving the drivers name and address and any pcn reference number, plus the VRM details too,  exercising her legal right under POFA2012,  and also CC DCB Legal as well

The parking company would then write to you as the named driver,  you then deal with the fallout as a driver,  first person witness,  probably the only witness 

But

I would think that your partner has no legal liability under English law

Presuming my partner would like to defend this as non-driving keeper, she could send the LoC template letter with relevant details included in the correct places.

However, if I understand what I’ve read about POFA in the Newbie thread, she could include with the template a defence written along the following lines: 

“I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver (see VCS v Edward, 2023). As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable conduct”


I am still a little mystified about how POFA 2012 applies in this case and on what basis it could be assumed that ParkingEye Smart Parking  did not invoke it, since we do not have any correspondence they may have sent to the old address. 

Yes she emails that LoC response and adds the extra addition you mentioned to it 

Smart Parking are renowned for not bothering with Pofa2012 compliance until quite recently,  this year, so definitely not in 2021 , ergo they are unable to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper 

I’ve been staring at text and reading about parking legislation for too long.