Transfer of Liability POFA

Foopa

Context - My vehicle was identified as an overstay (17 minutes) by ParkingEye Ltd in Aug 2024. I was not driving and not present at the time. The PCN was issued to me as the vehicle keeper and I was requested to identify the driver and pass the PCN to them. The photographic evidence does not identify the driver, which could be one of three others. I appealed stating I wasn’t driving, wasn’t present at the time and couldn’t identify the driver from the poor photographic evidence; I also stated the vehicle was insured for 4 drivers and I wasn’t compelled to identify the driver as I wasn’t there and therefore couldn’t state who was driving. My initial appeal failed. I appealed to POPLA who declined the appeal and stated the liability had been legally transferred under POFA 2012. The matter has been with DCBL ever since who have continued to assert the debt. I have remained consistent in my defence, in that I don’t know who was driving and have engaged DCBL extensively even when they’ve asserted that I haven’t communicated with them. I’m aware that the statute of limitations is six years, some 13 months have now passed. DVBL have offered a reduced fee and I continue to decline to pay the PCN. DCBL are indicating that it’s up to Parking Eye Ltd to take this to court, which they have so far declined to do. Question - Given I’m not the person driving or photographed, wasn’t there and can’t therefore be liable, how will they successfully take this to court? And how can liability for a contract I didn’t enter be passed to me? 

Coupon-mad

Question - Given I’m not the person driving or photographed, wasn’t there and can’t therefore be liable, how will they successfully take this to court? And how can liability for a contract I didn’t enter be passed to me?

Answer - Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

DCB Legal will file a court claim that you will defend using our template defence.

In 2026, DCB Legal will discontinue. 

 

Foopa

Coupon Mad - point me to your template defence please. Many thanks 

The_Slithy_Tove

PE PCNs tend to be POFA compliant, so they have every right to pursue you as keeper if you won't/can't identify the driver.

However, PE normally do their own chasing and legal process rather than handing it over to the likes of DBCL. They only farm it out when they know it's a lost cause. The offer of a reduced charge is also a sign that they know they are on to a loser. In some places, PE are not allowed to take it to court (on landowner's instructions), which is another scenario when they desperately scabble around (via DBCL) for any money they can extort.

Car1980

You can transfer liability to person A, who can then reply that they weren't the driver.
It'll bounce back to the keeper who can then transfer liability to person B, who can then reply that they weren't the driver.

Ad infinitum until court proceedings.

If they made a court claim against person B, for example, their defence would be that they weren't the driver.
If they made a court claim against the keeper, their defence would be that they transferred liability to person B.

All entirely legitimate in a case where the keeper genuinely doesn't know.

Foopa

Car1980, thank you. In essence my defence to PE and DCBL is there are 4 people insured for the vehicle. The photo provided does clearly identify the driver and I know it wasn’t me. I did contemplate providing 3 names and then leave it up to PE to work out who they wanted to send it to. I decided instead to say - your evidence is insufficient to identify a driver, therefore I can’t help you. POPLA chose to ignore that line of argument. Surely a court would expect the complainant to have clearly identified the alleged offender? I have offered to help if they can provide clear evidence which they’ve stated they would “investigate “ some 10 months ago but have instead reverted to DCBL. Any views? 

Car1980

Since you're at such a late stage I would just tell DCB Legal and Parking Eye that the driver is X and you are transferring liability to them. No point in getting into too much detail. You know 100% it's not you, so you can only go on the balance of probabilities who it might have been.

They'll fob you off though, so please search for a thread that was posted in the last 3 days with the text to use.

Foopa

Carl1980, thank you. I’ll search for the post. Do I give them the smorgasbord of names to choose from with addresses? I’ve already denied liability and stated that I can’t help (as opposed to won’t help) as there is no evidence to work with. I presume PE and DCBL will have to decide who to ping first and will then do the rounds with the others. Same argument will apply, not me guv the photo’s crap, don’t know who this is? 

Car1980

I would just give them one. That strengthens your position if they did make a court claim.

It's up to the named driver to deny it. 

kryten3000

The point here is that by naming the driver prior to the issue of a claim you, the registered keeper, have discharged your liability under the POFA.  DCB Legal will try to say that it's "too late" because you didn't name the driver within 28 days of the issue of the charge notice, but that's not correct.

Paragraph 4 of the POFA Schedule 4 states that the creditor has the right to recover charges from the keeper of the vehicle provided that the vehicle was not stolen and paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are also met.

Paragraph 5 makes it clear that the creditor can only take action if: 

"(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."

If they know the driver's name and address before a claim is issued then they can no longer pursue the keeper.

The_Slithy_Tove

Foopa said:

The photo provided does clearly identify the driver and I know it wasn’t me. I did contemplate providing 3 names and then leave it up to PE to work out who they wanted to send it to. I decided instead to say - your evidence is insufficient to identify a driver, therefore I can’t help you. POPLA chose to ignore that line of argument. Surely a court would expect the complainant to have clearly identified the alleged offender?

Any views? 

Yes. Lying won't help your cause if it ever got that far. Of course POPLA ignored you - they are only interested in deciding if the PCN was valid and conformed to POFA if PE are relying on it, which it likely was. Being equivocal about identifying the driver does not satisfy your obligations for transferring liability to the driver, so it's still on you. In any court case, the Claimant will identify you as the keeper who has not transferred liability.

Not that I think it'll ever get that far, but you're barking up the wrong tree at the moment.