Clarification of Newbie Thread

Gr1pr

Gene_Crewbar said:

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

 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. 

Remember,  Rome wasn't built in a day, hence why you should be more accepting of the advice being given by those of us who reply with England and Wales advice 

Hopefully your partner will do the right thing here,  standing her ground 

Coupon-mad

We are 100% certain that Smart Parking never used the POFA (not ever) until this year.

Gene_Crewbar

Gr1pr said:

Gene_Crewbar said:

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

 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. 

Remember,  Rome wasn't built in a day, hence why you should be more accepting of the advice being given by those of us who reply with England and Wales advice 

Hopefully your partner will do the right thing here,  standing her ground 

Well, t’was the various threads full of advice and links on this forum I was reading. 

Gr1pr

True, but I doubt that you were studying Smart Parking advice in the year 2021 , or before 2025 for that matter

Experience over many years tells us that with certain cases there is no keeper liability,  so if the keeper wasn't the driver then they are not liable,  as in this case for anything before 2025  

The announcements are up to date,  we give advice based on the present and the past,  so as your thread featured a past pcn then the advice reflects that aspect because of its importance 

But if it happened again next week,  our advice would be based on the present aspects,  which could be different,  typically if a parking company have finally started to comply with Pofa2012,  the law ( so after 13 years of not doing so, they are chasing historical cases like your partners,  most of which are likely to fail if challenged correctly,  but going forward they may have more success next year onwards , if they improved their enforcement processes   )

Read the following court claim case where the driver was admitted and is being chased for a 2021 pcn

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6620049/chances-of-winning-at-court#latest

Read this 2025 appeal one where they possibly tried to comply with Pofa2012 but failed at Popla based on the timescales , so nothing to do with the incident or who was driving 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6603065/smart-parking-sp/p1

doubledotcom

This is a lot of waffle and obvious overthinking for what is a simple and guaranteed win if you only respond to the LoC as the Keeper. They WILL issue a county court claim and you could defend it with a nursery rhyme and it will be discontinued before the £27 trial fee has to be paid.

Anything else, and you are going to screw up what is essentially a simple win. Whether you do it for your wife does it is irrelevant as long as it is done in the Keepers name and the driver is only referred to in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".

Gene_Crewbar

doubledotcom said:

This is a lot of waffle and obvious overthinking for what is a simple and guaranteed win if you only respond to the LoC as the Keeper. They WILL issue a county court claim and you could defend it with a nursery rhyme and it will be discontinued before the £27 trial fee has to be paid.

Anything else, and you are going to screw up what is essentially a simple win. Whether you do it for your wife does it is irrelevant as long as it is done in the Keepers name and the driver is only referred to in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".

Understood. Many thanks to all. 

Gene_Crewbar

In accordance with all your esteemed advice, today the following was delivered to DCB Legal by email:

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. [REDACTED]
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: Smart Parking Ltd

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

[REDACTED]

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended. The date on which The Contract was allegedly entered into is so far in the past that I do not know what it refers to. 

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 sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a grossly exaggerated amount which the Government described as "extorting money from motorists".

Accordingly, I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Your letter states that some portion of the sum is ‘debt recovery costs.’ Is this portion nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully, 

[REDACTED]

Coupon-mad

Good! Just don't show us their reply. Seriously we never want to see it again. Just search the forum for the VAT acronym in it...

Gene_Crewbar

Coupon-mad said:

Good! Just don't show us their reply. Seriously we never want to see it again. Just search the forum for the VAT acronym in it...

Okay, I won’t. Re: VAT, initial searches bring up references to reporting the claimant to HMRC but I haven’t been able to find reference to this being used to prepare a defence submitted via MCOL etc, which is the primary concern at the moment.

Gr1pr

Its not supposed to,  it was a strategy suggested months ago as a separate fightback,  nothing to do with defending the case   ( not everything is about your partners case  , think bigger picture   )  either she does report them, or she doesn't,  but it won't change her case